Anti-blob mechanic Splash damage

[Ferdoc]

Actually you are the OP so its down to you to proove your idea not me.

Assertion in question - The only people who will benefit from this idea are suiciders
Poster who made assertion - Kris.

You need to prove that assertion Kris. My only assertion is that this idea will make it easier to kill off a blob. Which, mathematically it does. My assertion is proven Kris, please kindly do the same as well.

again, what are you going on about? Im talking about the outcome of a blobcrash, not a silly little formula.

Outcomes of blobcrashes are based upon formulas, you know combat? All the planning the world means nothing if you don't understand HOW the outcome will be arrived at.

LOL what?

I stated that suiciders wont scare people off the blob. What the heck has that got to do with your comments above

The notion of fear OF suiciders. Not the reaction in game. People tend to limit behavior they fear, either through oppression, reward of inverse behavior, or outright removal of chance of said behavior. I was commenting on YOUR personal fear of suiciders, inb4imnotscared. But hey, if you want to say people aren't scared of suiciders, by all means say so. But should one happen under this mechanic and the person milks it for every last fighter they can, I can't wait to see the reaction, not just in feedback and FR, but in game. Then again, you apparently are a seer and know what everyone everywhere will do all the time.

As for your comments about the heiho blob not moving please stop taking things out of context

Out of context you say?

The latter part assumes pure lock-step mentality of all involved in a power block. Also you assume players won't fear the risk of being targeted for 'high damage value' fleet compositions.

Maybe you don't understand what i'm saying. The Heiho blob will not be attacked, will not move and basically this idea wont change a thing.

I state you believe in lockstep mentality of associated guilds within a power block. You retort that Heiho will not be attacked AND will not move. Neither is a requisite of the other from how you state it (IE, since heiho will not be attack we will not move. not moving is a requisite of not being attacked).

I removed the other independent potion of your statement, which keeps its original meaning due to no requisite portion. You claimed

and since when did having a blob mean people just sit around?

Sitting around = not moving. Ergo I used your own words to disprove your sentiments.

Now kindly provide the math for your challenge of mine. Unless of course you just desire to spam this thread without providing anything other than baseless assertions and contradicting claims.

[kris]

get back to the idea

ok back to the idea.

wont work. The threat of splash damage by a player attacking wont force a move and will only benefit suiciders.

The only way to do that is with an ai driven event such as a black hole forcing players to move.

[Ferdoc]

So making it easier to kill off a blob and requiring less fleet to do so won't work. Right, seeing as a primary issue with blob crashes is the need to not only kill off the blob but secure the pile afterwards. So an idea that allows you to use less fleet to kill it off and make securing it easier won't work. Got it. Your opinions are noted (as well as your lack of math and/or logic to back them up).

[Winchester]

wont work. The threat of splash damage by a player attacking wont force a move and will only benefit suiciders.

I'm okay with benefiting suiciders.

[Ferdoc]

If there are no serious objections to the based on the question below; I request the thread be moved to the workshop.

Question - Is the function of the concept flawed or not? If flawed please state how and show using the formula. The function is to increase the ease of blob destruction.

[Lyra]

Not all servers are locked up by large immobile blobs. Helion for example is indeed locked up but there are at any one time four or five huddles dotted around that move very regularly. The lock up there is because the top 2 guilds are so far ahead of the rest that it would take a cataclysmic event to change that - and even then it would be short term since our caps mean we'd be back ahead pretty fast (we know because we did it once already). They won't fight each other because the PEOPLE are too tied together on other servers - nothing you can or should do about that.
Do we get suiciders, - occasionally. Do we get sneak attacks - yep. Do we care - umm, no. We stay active. We've shot more suiciders before they hit than actually succeed, and if someone can get in a sneak attack on our huddle, well kudos to them. Activity is the key, though, not formulae and fiddling.
So as to your idea - it's not THE solution to server lockup, so please look beyond your limited horizons and think about how it would affect across the servers. Whether it could work or not - meh - who cares since, let's be honest, it's not going to happen.
Also, before you get hung up on the math, you might think about the impact on behaviour. It's like wormholes - it's not wormholes that ruined the game, it's how we the players have adapted to use them.

[kris]

If there are no serious objections to the based on the question below; I request the thread be moved to the workshop.

Question - Is the function of the concept flawed or not? If flawed please state how and show using the formula. The function is to increase the ease of blob destruction.

yes I have serious objections.

I have experience in crashing the biggest blobs in the game and I know for sure that this will not work as well as other ideas such as a black hole. There is absolutely no point in putting an inferior idea into the workshop as that is supposed to be for only the best ideas and there are too many crap ideas in there already.

May I ask you Ferdoc if you have ever been involved in the planning of a blob crash. If so how big, how did it go down etc. There is a lot more involved in a crash than simple numbers and until you have actually planned one then you really don't know how blobs work.

You can put down as many numbers as you like from a battlecalc but to take down a blob requires a certain knowledge that a calc cannot give you.

Activity is the key, though, not formulae and fiddling.
So as to your idea - it's not THE solution to server lockup, so please look beyond your limited horizons and think about how it would affect across the servers. Whether it could work or not - meh - who cares since, let's be honest, it's not going to happen.

Agreed

Its funny how those with the experience can see this, yet those who don't even have an in game account that they are willing to reveal come here and act like they know what they are talking about.

[Ferdoc]

Lyra, Kris, perhaps you might want to re-read the question and ask yourself if you really answered it. I asked if the function and purpose of the concept was flawed. Not the status of a single server. Nor did I request that a previous concept (which was shot down horribly mind you) be reposted. Please try to remain on topic.

[kris]

Lyra, Kris, perhaps you might want to re-read the question and ask yourself if you really answered it. I asked if the function and purpose of the concept was flawed. Not the status of a single server. Nor did I request that a previous concept (which was shot down horribly mind you) be reposted. Please try to remain on topic.

Yes it is flawed because it is not taking into account the things that those with experience in planning blob crashes would take into account.

As I asked before do you have any experience in planning the crashing of any blob, if so what blob and how big? Or is the biggest hit you ever made a suicide?

You seem to keep avoiding that question.

[Kakarot]

The whole game is based upon numbers. If the formula works correctly then the idea in theory should work, using anecdotal evidence which doesn't have the formula in place is flawed. If you are going to say that this feature is not going to work, use an actual example where the formula would be used and that the current system is better. Just saying, what's your biggest hit is not providing any feedback on the idea but more to improve your e-peen.

[kris]

The whole game is based upon numbers. If the formula works correctly then the idea in theory should work, using anecdotal evidence which doesn't have the formula in place is flawed. If you are going to say that this feature is not going to work, use an actual example where the formula would be used and that the current system is better. Just saying, what's your biggest hit is not providing any feedback on the idea but more to improve your e-peen.

your wrong,

formulas and numbers wont help you win a blob crash, there is much more to it than that.

as for not providing feedback i have

[Kakarot]

The whole game is based upon numbers. If the formula works correctly then the idea in theory should work, using anecdotal evidence which doesn't have the formula in place is flawed. If you are going to say that this feature is not going to work, use an actual example where the formula would be used and that the current system is better. Just saying, what's your biggest hit is not providing any feedback on the idea but more to improve your e-peen.

your wrong,

formulas and numbers wont help you win a blob crash

Wow.

I suggest that you look at your fleet and you will see these things that have numbers in it and guess what those things have values too. Holy smoke Batman more numbers!

So in a blob crash you want more fleet than the opposing side or do more damage as a ratio. Which again involves these wonderful things called NUMBERS.

[Ko Tung-Yuen]

So in a blob crash you want more fleet than the opposing side or do more damage as a ratio. Which again involves these wonderful things called NUMBERS.

Wrong, won multiple crashes with inferior numbers, including 2:1 in enemy favor, and yes, this includes large scale crashes as well, not small ones.

[kris]

I quoted everything that I saw at the time.

By assigning those people to various targets and calculated those hits, you have already won the crash if those calculations are correct.

Incorrect.

There are lots of things that can and will go wrong, people will not be online who you have asssigned targets too, enemy fleets will come on or maybe they will all be online hitting you as you land, people will hit the wrong targets, etc,etc,etc.

There is much more to a crash than simply assigning targets. Only way that will work is if your hitting inactives.

The point remains, you have made the claim that this does not work, therefore you have found a fault with the calculation from the formula or that the current system is better than the proposed change. If so, show us the calculation.

How does me saying it doesn't work have anything to do with calculations. Sure calculations may work but it doesn't mean ideas will. I could come up with an idea saying everyone above 100m fleet should get their fleet doubled. Here you go:

If fleet = 100m then fleet = 2xfleet

That calculation works, can you come up with a calculation showing that it doesn't?

Of course you cant, but its a ridiculous idea anyway and there is more to it than a calculation. Just like this thread.

[Lyra]

I did answer your question - I said the concept is flawed because you are not factoring in the behavioural variables. I'm really not convinced that you have worked through the implications for the newer servers, either.
I agree with Masa on this one - crashes are won and lost as much on people (and a smidge of old fashioned luck) as on numbers. Fortunately. Otherwise you could just do the spreadsheet and go home and where would be the fun in that?
Plus the crash is actually won not really on doing most damage but on holding the pile.