Red Heat: A Game of Russian Roulette

[SPYDERWOLF]

How is that any different from now? How would a new guy alliance do any damage to any one of the existing coalitions?

The answer is simple, they wouldn't.

So we need to stop worring about what the little guy would do, if a new alliance wants into 0.0, they'll find a way, either through NPC 0.0 or like I said, joining an existing coalition. Worrying about what a little alliance could do when they can't do anything now is kinda silly in the design process, its handicapping the design process with an unrealistic expectation.



These are all bad examples.

The Tet offensive, was huge, it hit points across hundreds of miles off the HCM Trail, did it mass men and resources? Yes, yes it did, but it massed them in several places and used them across dozens of places at once, the same with the Battle of the Bulge, the attack was initiated across a hundred miles, its just that the Arden Forest was the place that the attack actually made progress. It wasn't a mass concentration of forces in one place, but several places at once, trying to push the Allies back. Gettysburg was also not a singular massing of forces for a push, but a series of moving engagements and battles all through the area, Gettysburg being just one of the many battles fought in the area as the south tried to push north.


Singular massing of forces has historically had a very tragic ending for the massed group, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, allows the basket to be surrounded, cut off, and eventually killed. Throughout recorded history there are examples of people doing exactly what we do every day and ending up brutally punished for their actions.




Coalitions are eve, there hasn't been a war fought in the game that didn't involve a coalition, so maybe its time we start thinking more realistically about what we're planning for. There is no plucky singular alliance thats forging a new world. There are groups of alliances, who work together, and that is the game we need to have mechanics for, not some utopian dream thats never actually existed in the game.

+1

[Raketefrau]

As someone whose been here since 2003, remembering the game when on Sundays at primetime there was 3k people online and fights involving just 20 vs 20 created lag. Then progressing a year later after the Great Northern War when 100bs fleets were first seen and game features were being removed to combat lag(mines). Seeing the game progress to playable fights of 2k ppl nowadays is simply amazing. Tidi is honestly one of the best things this game has ever had and CCP are really finally going down the correct road.

Dude, 100 battleships in a single battle is insane. I know people keep saying, "If they make it so 200 battleships can be in the same fight, people will bring 300," but there's no way that'll ever happen.

[Arrador]

Singular massing of forces has historically had a very tragic ending for the massed group, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, allows the basket to be surrounded, cut off, and eventually killed. Throughout recorded history there are examples of people doing exactly what we do every day and ending up brutally punished for their actions.

Singularly massing of forces for extended periods of time yes (Maginot line), for a single strategic battle? not so much. Normandy springs to mind, Sinking of the spanish armada springs to mind, Iron bottom sound, I'm not a historian either, but its not hard to find a few examples in history, where there was a massive and deciding dogpile of forces. Just like uemon, 020 mk1/2, y-2, etc etc. (Why the fuck are we comparing RL to eve.)

The point being, unless they start instancing or completely decimating eve as a sandbox, nothing will ever circumvent the human principle of N+1.

[Yue]

I must have misread your intent Grath, sorry. What then do you suggest? I agree with the sentiment that "Coalitons are eve" but how do we make sov mechanics better?

[G M]

Bit of an update on the actual war.... xDeath broke the NIP brokered by PL for them and IRC earlier today, RFing IRCs capital constellation, IRC is back in the war. They mad.

[zenthral]

I'm taking back fountain right now

[Grath]

I must have misread your intent Grath, sorry. What then do you suggest?

See, I'm not a game designer, I'm a carpenter, so how to fix it is probably beyond me, but having a timer that sets up 2+ days advanced notice to constantly mass everybody at one point isn't good game design when they don't have/can't come up with the hardware to support it.

The idea of multiple objectives to break the blob has been presented, but people always cry about the little guy, the new alliance, but realistically, I think we need to stop thinking about the little guy since he can't do shit now anyway, and start creating a game that gives incentive to split your force.

[Yue]

See, I'm not a game designer, I'm a carpenter, so how to fix it is probably beyond me, but having a timer that sets up 2+ days advanced notice to constantly mass everybody at one point isn't good game design when they don't have/can't come up with the hardware to support it.

The idea of multiple objectives to break the blob has been presented, but people always cry about the little guy, the new alliance, but realistically, I think we need to stop thinking about the little guy since he can't do shit now anyway, and start creating a game that gives incentive to split your force.

I can see the sense in, for now anyway, ignoring the little guy. People will always want to blob so I guess CCP needs to consider how to make it in their best interests not to.

[Malcanis]

See, I'm not a game designer, I'm a carpenter, so how to fix it is probably beyond me, but having a timer that sets up 2+ days advanced notice to constantly mass everybody at one point isn't good game design when they don't have/can't come up with the hardware to support it.

This. Whatever else, this.

[Grath]

Normandy springs to mind.

Normandy wasn't a singular massing of forces either. 5 different beach heads across miles of coastline, and paratroopers the night before placed well inland, the attack was spread fairly wide. I'd have to read up on Naval battles a bit but I'm willing to bet that the sinking of the Spanish Armada was probably something similar.


If you want to look, Vietnam has held some very realistic examples of what I'm talking about, Operation Barbarosa is a shining example, Napoleans push into Russia, or even the huge death toll the US saw in the Pacific Theater from being FORCED to do this over and over for each island, the idea that you should commit everything to a single objective if the opponent wants to fight back at all is outright suicide, and every military campaign that didn't fall on its face involved hitting multiple objectives at once with the exception of Pacific Campaign because we literally blobbed the japs to death.

[fugazii]

See, I'm not a game designer, I'm a carpenter, so how to fix it is probably beyond me, but having a timer that sets up 2+ days advanced notice to constantly mass everybody at one point isn't good game design when they don't have/can't come up with the hardware to support it.

But that's not and has never been what EVE is about. EVE has always been about big, big big big. Massive battles and turning points, timers and do or die moments. Removing the need for mass battles unseen anywhere else would be the death of EVE. We play EVE because of the epic, that is unique to it.

[Desert Punk]

One possible solution would be to introduce a kind of two tier sov system, One for attacking a singular system, this would help the "little guy" and allow for epic fights for HQ systems to spring up every one and a while. The other being a multiple objectives sov system which would be for attacking/defending entire constellations at the coalition level in an attrition-al war. Add to that a similar mechanic to Sins of Solar empire "damage mitigation" to encourage fleets to not blob up and focus all their fire on a single structure, in a single system.

[Fix Lag]

The worst thing about TiDi is that it gives Daberb a chance to tell stories

No the worst thing about TiDi is that it killed a gimmick I thought would never get outdated

[Goblin]

At least the sov map is going to look really different. I check that thing all the time its boring when alliances aren't getting kicked out.

[progodlegend]

The most plausible and sensible sov change suggested so far has been making it more of a constellation thing rather than just single systems. That would make it a lot more interesting, depending on how it was implemented. All of the these other weird ideas are for the most part retarded.

If i

[tgr]

Holy shit, Grath is literally doing the SOV argument thing for me.

I'll be over here, sipping a mojito.

[Fix Lag]

Holy shit, Grath is literally doing the SOV argument thing for me.

I'll be over here, sipping a mojito.

See now he realizes what he's doing and he's gonna stop. The trick is to let it keep going without letting them figure out they're doing it themselves.

[Desert Punk]

But that's not and has never been what EVE is about. EVE has always been about big, big big big. Massive battles and turning points, timers and do or die moments. Removing the need for mass battles unseen anywhere else would be the death of EVE. We play EVE because of the epic, that is unique to it.

I do agree with this point but one of the problems with this is when both sides form up and one sees the other has a massive blob of Titans or Maelstroms amassed into that one system the other side thinks "fuck that shit blueball them fuckers" while epic when the fights do happen, this most often leads to blueballs and generally unfun wars.

[tgr]

Nah, it all makes sense. While the whole "holy shit 2k in local fighting" is awesome, from time to time, having that every 2 days until one side breaks is dumb. Pretty certain it'd be better for everybody that conflicts were lots of smaller (1v1 full rifter fleets at the sun) skirmishes intermixed with the occasional big surprise fight.

[Quasi]

Off the top of my slightly pointy skull, how about every SoV system has (depending on Sov level) has a number of scannable sites that when defeated would lower the requirements for taking the Sov of the system i.e. you take down 2 of the 5 in the system and suddenly there isn't 3 timers any more but 2. Make the sites like wormholes with size/number limits on attackers, but giving the Sov holder the ability to "defend" the site with a warning ping and the same size limits. Would also make those scanning skills useful in another way (and would allow a new money sink if you needed special Sov scanning probes that are used up when they find the site). The defender would only be able to defend the site once its being attacked, so no stacking up defenses. Finally, even if you took down all the sites, there would still be the standard defenses of the ihub, stations etc, but you can burn through all of them at once rather than having to come back day after day.

[Grath]

Holy shit, Grath is literally doing the SOV argument thing for me.

I'll be over here, sipping a mojito.

I'll expect you up at bat in the next supercap discussion.

[tgr]

Highly sceptical on actual size limits.

[tgr]

I'll expect you up at bat in the next supercap discussion.

You know precisely where I stand on supercaps, though.

Having said that, I'm a few days from being able to start training tactical reconfiguration 5, guess I'd better see about building a moros soon, and rejoin capswarm.

[Grath]

You know precisely where I stand on supercaps, though.

Having said that, I'm a few days from being able to start training tactical reconfiguration 5, guess I'd better see about building a moros soon, and rejoin capswarm.

Yea, i think Mittens really liked slowcats (god damn manny i didn't see anybody who DIDN'T like the Slowcats) so I expect Capswarm to get a serious uptick in activity.

[Scotch]

Yea, i think Mittens really liked slowcats (god damn manny i didn't see anybody who DIDN'T like the Slowcats) so I expect Capswarm to get a serious uptick in activity.

Something else to bring on an Extended Capital Roam^tm.

[tgr]

Actually, it's going to be interesting to see what effect it'll have on supers if CCP actually does crack down on botting, both for isk and for minerals.

But, slowcats? I wasn't there, I just got to SAH or something before we were told the station was down, at which point I just said fuck it, set destination to VFK, activated autopilot and went to bed.

The drake still lives, incidentally.

[progodlegend]

Normandy wasn't a singular massing of forces either. 5 different beach heads across miles of coastline, and paratroopers the night before placed well inland, the attack was spread fairly wide. I'd have to read up on Naval battles a bit but I'm willing to bet that the sinking of the Spanish Armada was probably something similar.


If you want to look, Vietnam has held some very realistic examples of what I'm talking about, Operation Barbarosa is a shining example, Napoleans push into Russia, or even the huge death toll the US saw in the Pacific Theater from being FORCED to do this over and over for each island, the idea that you should commit everything to a single objective if the opponent wants to fight back at all is outright suicide, and every military campaign that didn't fall on its face involved hitting multiple objectives at once with the exception of Pacific Campaign because we literally blobbed the japs to death.

Just because we didn't assault with troops multiple islands simultaneously doesn't mean we were not focusing on more than one objective. The pacific campaign is a pretty good example of how to coordinate naval and land forces across multiple islands. The navy and the air force had long shut down most supplies/reinforcements to the various islands long before we assaulted them. So what we were doing was cutting off multiple islands at once over a large operational area with naval and air force power, and then moving our land group from one island to the next. The high death tolls have a lot more to do with the Japanese's refusal to surrender and the defensive advantages given by small islands with shitty terrain. But mostly the Japanese's refusal to surrender, had the German's been on those islands instead of the Japanese, there would have been a lot less casualties on both sides (the German's probably would have surrendered before the assaults in some cases, as there was literally no hope for some of those islands).

To give a similar hypothetical example in old sov terms, you would be using sub caps to fight the enemy fleets in various locations, while moving your dread fleet around sieging pos's one at a time.

[Grath]

See, I'm even right when I'm wrong.

[Stronke]

mad skilz Grath

[progodlegend]

See, I'm even right when I'm wrong.

My point exactly .

[Some Market Dude]

Nerf carriers and/or sentry drones.

[tgr]

Actually, it's going to be interesting to see what effect it'll have on supers if CCP actually does crack down on botting, both for isk and for minerals.

Actually, just to put this into perspective, 2010 Q4 QEN said that there were a total of 445 trillion isk in total in the game, with 258tn of that being on active player characters, and 33tn of that being in corp wallets. Compare that to what CCP Diagoras says now, "Active characters/corporations had a wallet balance of 484.7tn ISK yesterday." ... so that's almost a 100% increase in active isk in a little over a year. I'd still love to see the amount of the various minerals in total in the game, q4 2010 vs now. And this includes minerals that are locked down in ships.

Though it's no wonder we see supers dying every day and go "meh, another one?".

[Phey Onat]

The most plausible and sensible sov change suggested so far has been making it more of a constellation thing rather than just single systems. That would make it a lot more interesting, depending on how it was implemented. All of the these other weird ideas are for the most part retarded.

The ability to siege an entire constellation at a time, rather than siege every system in the constellation at a time, would certainly help speed up conquest of dead alliance's regions.

[Kevin]

Make incursions sov related.

Watch hisec take over nullsec. Their shiny fleets, there is no competing with them!

Seriously though split objectives that end in a big final fight might be a compromise, you're going to get the big final timer anyway, but having 'small' fleets able to compete to push it closer/further from the final timer might be more interesting than a set timer to form up titans > supers > triage carriers > tengus.

Also making sov constellation-centric sounds nice but there are a lot of corps/alliances out there that only hold 1 or 2 systems. Granted, these are renters, but as a wise man once said, its those same renters that makes the regions vibrant?.

[Kevin]

Also, at the risk of dblpsting, does anyone else see the irony of people complaining about having big final timer fleet fights 1-2 pages after saying how great the big final CJ-6 send off was, despite the fact that there was no reason to fight over it

?

[Dumuzid]

My only issue with tidi is that it makes FCing 70 drakes painful as fuck when you need to reposition about 40km away to get a warpin towards hostiles.

I'm just sad my ragtag group of 70~ TEST/ESG got there a bit late tbh, we only got a few kills and almost all survived. I took 80 jumps in total last night, never again

I hope my Sanic fanfiction was enough to keep us entertained.

Also, that was my first big fight and first time flying a scimitar, and I helped to save Deuce, who was halfway through armor. I feel like I did something amazing.

[tgr]

Also, at the risk of dblpsting, does anyone else see the irony of people complaining about having big final timer fleet fights 1-2 pages after saying how great the big final CJ-6 send off was, despite the fact that there was no reason to fight over it

?

Not really. Big fleet fights are awesome, but the problem behind the complaints about "big final timer fleet fights" is, a lot of the time they just don't materialize. One side thinks it can't win, so it doesn't even engage, and both sides lose.

If the mechanics favor lots of smaller fleets, then there's most likely a lot less isk etc at stake, so the FCs are more likely to go "meh, fuck it, let's go in and blap bitches" than if they're looking at a system with a few trillion isk potentially on the field (which means he has to field a lot of isk as well). And that's exactly what today's mechanics call for, all hands on dick (or all blue paint on balls, depending), because both sides have literally days to prepare and call in help etc, and concentrate all your forces in one system.

[Lorren Canada]

Am I the only person here who really likes massive 1,000+ man battles and doesn't want them to go away?

I'm taking back fountain right now

Be my guest

[Hilmar Keller]

Can a Slowcat tank a DD?

I'm guessing not.

[Mizuchi]

How is that any different from now? How would a new guy alliance do any damage to any one of the existing coalitions?

The answer is simple, they wouldn't.

So we need to stop worring about what the little guy would do, if a new alliance wants into 0.0, they'll find a way, either through NPC 0.0 or like I said, joining an existing coalition. Worrying about what a little alliance could do when they can't do anything now is kinda silly in the design process, its handicapping the design process with an unrealistic expectation.



These are all bad examples.

The Tet offensive, was huge, it hit points across hundreds of miles off the HCM Trail, did it mass men and resources? Yes, yes it did, but it massed them in several places and used them across dozens of places at once, the same with the Battle of the Bulge, the attack was initiated across a hundred miles, its just that the Arden Forest was the place that the attack actually made progress. It wasn't a mass concentration of forces in one place, but several places at once, trying to push the Allies back. Gettysburg was also not a singular massing of forces for a push, but a series of moving engagements and battles all through the area, Gettysburg being just one of the many battles fought in the area as the south tried to push north.


Singular massing of forces has historically had a very tragic ending for the massed group, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, allows the basket to be surrounded, cut off, and eventually killed. Throughout recorded history there are examples of people doing exactly what we do every day and ending up brutally punished for their actions.




Coalitions are eve, there hasn't been a war fought in the game that didn't involve a coalition, so maybe its time we start thinking more realistically about what we're planning for. There is no plucky singular alliance thats forging a new world. There are groups of alliances, who work together, and that is the game we need to have mechanics for, not some utopian dream thats never actually existed in the game.

Could be interesting if they add a 'coalition' mechanic ingame. Corp->Alliance->Coalition.

[Flinx]

Also, at the risk of dblpsting, does anyone else see the irony of people complaining about having big final timer fleet fights 1-2 pages after saying how great the big final CJ-6 send off was, despite the fact that there was no reason to fight over it

?

I think the issue is that nothing happens at all for 2 days while people move into position to CTA the big fight. It would be far more interesting to have smaller less predictable battles occurring all the time rather than one huge fight that has been known about for days that offers no surprises.

While it is very nice to be involved in a battle on that scale and it is really what the end game of eve is about, it is detracting from the everyday experience. I recall when some misty eyed Devs were talking about having 1000 people fighting on the same grid as their dream, and many sceptics laughed at them because at the time the lag was unplayable. So very well done CCP dudes, what you have in EVE is quite incredible in terms of server performance.

If there was some way to change sov mechanics that allowed smaller fleets to be a threat and require an immediate response or lose a resource then we would be very happy. I have no answer, as time zones are a problem you can't have a small gang running around destroying infrastructure while everyone is sleeping, but if there was a maximum reinforce timer of 12 hours then you would see who was committed.

Can a Slowcat tank a DD?

I'm guessing not.

One

[Kevin]

To do what exactly?

e: re: coalition mechanic

[KAVASION]

From what I understand, DUST 514 will influence in the future the sovereignity mechanics. I don't know if CCP has disclosed in detail how this will be accomplished, but I think that this is their plan in order to link DUST 514 with EVE in real time fights.

[Grath]

Am I the only person here who really likes massive 1,000+ man battles and doesn't want them to go away?

Its not that we don't like them or want them to go away, but thats literally the only fights lately, the all or nothing brawls. We'd like reasons to have smaller fights where the game functions normally, we'd like some reasons for people to not bet every single thing they have, OR nothing at all, on every fight because of the severity of the situation.

I really hate myself for saying this, but TGR is absolutely right, the constant tug of war from POS warfare wasn't ideal, but it was better than the singular massive fuck off fights that we have now.

Huge fights are great, they make some awesome memories, I still remember the BKG fights from up north, and that was years ago, but its the fact that now days, you either fully commit for one of these timers (always the final timer), or you're fucked and nothing happens at all.

Believe that we don't want to do away with the 2000 man fights, but we'd like to see a REASON to have smaller scale fights as well, beyond "hey theres a roaming gang of 50 dudes here, ask them to hold on while we form up for 30 minutes" or some inane shit like that.

[tgr]

Am I the only person here who really likes massive 1,000+ man battles and doesn't want them to go away?

Nope. As it is right now, they're awesome treats, the few times they do happen. As I said, though, the current mechanics give both sides tons of time to prepare for this, which means the chances of literally trillions of isk being on the line in the fights between bigger coalitions is very, very high, and this means that the barrier to actually engage is similarly high, and the risk of just plain blueballing is accordingly high.

Besides, don't you find it more awesome to hear about what some of the other fleets in your coalition is doing in some other system, at the same time? I don't know about you, but I found that positively invigorating during the cloud ring/outer ring/fountain offensive, because it made shit feel a lot more fluid and more epic.

I really hate myself for saying this, but TGR is absolutely right, the constant tug of war from POS warfare wasn't ideal, but it was better than the singular massive fuck off fights that we have now.

I think hell just froze over.

Edit: I remember you literally flaying the skin off my back for even considering the concept of a tug of war, a year ago. What happened to change your mind?

[Xystance]

These are all bad examples.

The Tet offensive, was huge, it hit points across hundreds of miles off the HCM Trail, did it mass men and resources? Yes, yes it did, but it massed them in several places and used them across dozens of places at once, the same with the Battle of the Bulge, the attack was initiated across a hundred miles, its just that the Arden Forest was the place that the attack actually made progress. It wasn't a mass concentration of forces in one place, but several places at once, trying to push the Allies back. Gettysburg was also not a singular massing of forces for a push, but a series of moving engagements and battles all through the area, Gettysburg being just one of the many battles fought in the area as the south tried to push north.

Singular massing of forces has historically had a very tragic ending for the massed group, putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak, allows the basket to be surrounded, cut off, and eventually killed. Throughout recorded history there are examples of people doing exactly what we do every day and ending up brutally punished for their actions.

That was kind of my point... I didn't mean to imply each battle was one single point with hundreds of thousands massed in one place, just that they were important enough to deploy the full force of resources. They were worth it, and adding everything involved in each means they played pivotal roles in the rest of the wars.


You make an interesting point though, the single massing of forces allows that force to be cut off and eventually killed, but that's ... ohgod accidental terrible star trek 2 paraphrase, that's two dimensional thinking. In "space" you're never truly cutoff from escape and I don't just mean by lolstarbursting, i mean by massing everyone in one system, capitals can jump out to any number of neighboring systems within their jump range, there's no allegory for that in standard combat, the big shit can't just "disappear" without being harassed on the way out like the big shit in eve, our "spaceship simulator that tries with lots of to be realistic". As long as jump drives are part of the game (or imagined future history of space travel) you can't effectively surround, cutoff and kill stuff without massively outnumbering your enemy for lol bubbles, why should you have to spread out your force when you can blob one system with everything you have, the jump and bridge to the next system to do the same thing?


It's a problem that's kind of terrifying to address in the future should a jump drive where you can't touch a ship in the middle of transit becomes real.



My point is, the massing of everything into one system isn't such a terrible thing, we just have to find ways to deal with it. I won't even hazard a theoretical guess on how to solve it on the technology side, I -am- staying artificial penalties to stacking a system with shit tons of people takes away from the realism and immersion that EvE -tries- to stick to.


Throw realism and immersion out the window as goals and you can do all sorts of crazy shit.,. but then we'd have Star Trek the MMO bullshit, may as well just make a Naruto MMO.

[Xystance]

Hey guys I have a great idea.

Hockey's doing it right, why not have a "shoot out" mechanic,

when a system breaks 2500 all combative sides have to send in one ship at a time to fight one ship at a time. It'd be like Nobunaga's Ambition , no, it's be like Wing Commander: Armada where you could have as many fighters on your carrier as you wanted, but you could only send them in two by two with a capital backing you up because fuck having more than six ships on grid at a time when you're playing over a modem of serial cable?

[Xystance]

Does 299x count as dubs?

[Grath]

As long as jump drives are part of the game

Yea, I had a nice idea for a mod, that actually could be anchored like a cyno jammer, only it would work in reverse, stop caps from jumping out.

[Night]

I disagree, if the system somehow REQUIRED you to be in multiple systems to weaken the sov enough in one for capture, and that you needed to STAY in those systems to keep it weak during capture, then you would in essence split the blob.

How do you really propose to split up a 1000-man blob? One of the core trends of war in EVE has been the ability to deploy and sustain ever-larger numbers on the field, and there are a periodic slumps for entities and the game itself that require any such system react, somehow, to the people on hand.

I just don't think such a system is possible. It would have to track blues and and deployed forces dynamicly, allow for the possibility of third parties who've come to gawk or vulture, allow for the possibility people won't blue but still pursue common objectives, not be vulnerable to hilarious abuse of any or all of these features...

The amount of work such a system would entail might well approach an entirely new game. I don't see any way it can be made practical.