Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
H3ndrix
freelancers inc -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.03.24 03:10:00 -
[241]
I used to have a Sig but CCP Nerfed it !!!! It wasn't Nerfed, it was moderationally enhanced. -Darth Patches |
J Kunjeh
|
Posted - 2011.03.24 13:36:00 -
[242]
Supported, though I'm not sure how technically feasible it is (but i'd LOVE to read a really long, totally geeked out Dev Blog discussing the possibility).
~Gnosis~ |
Max Kolonko
Caldari Worm Nation Ash Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 11:26:00 -
[243]
as i was watching fanfest feed one of Devs said they will go for it. They will (not soon, but in a long run) try to implement something like this. Max Kolonko |
Levistus Junior
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 12:37:00 -
[244]
Supported.
Wanted to say how cool this idea is, but others said it already
|
Inka Kaoru
Perkone
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 23:16:00 -
[245]
Genius.
+1 |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 16:44:00 -
[246]
i thought it wasnt just me that saw that part of fanfest! theres no vid on youtube with the presentation on server performance etc... cant remember what that actual presentation was called bt made me smile when i caught Brian BossT's comment refering to this idea!
YAAAAAAAY!!! CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Jonathan Malcom
Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 17:40:00 -
[247]
This actually sound like a pretty cool solution. I mean, who doesn't like slow motion fight scenes.
|
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P. Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:22:00 -
[248]
|
The Mittani
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 03:27:00 -
[249]
time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention.
The Mittani for CSM6 Sins of a Solar Spymaster
|
Tyme Xandr
Gallente Dark Circle Enforcement
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 20:55:00 -
[250]
I've read much of this thread but it was difficult to find posts that added to the discussion. My main concern is like other have pointed out that this would give more time for reinforcements (which honestly isnt that bad of a thing in many cases as it works for both sides ...) but here my thought that may have been brought up before, so if it has just ignore me.
The immediate area around the system should experience a similar effect. One or two jumps spidering from the system would be given the same notification and have similar 'bullet time' effects. This doesnt necessarily stop people from using caps to jump in but would slow down reinforcements using the traditional methods of coming in.
Also, would caps that jump fleets experience an additional wait time to jump in? Say the system was decreased by a factor of half time. Would the cap jumping in from a different system have to wait twice as long to jump? [≡v≡] |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 11:39:00 -
[251]
well there is the issue of titan bridging into a maxxed out system, as well as other caps.
having a large amount of ships jumping in does create a lot of server load straight away so this specific fix wont be able to resolve that as such. but once in the system, request load for every kind of movement will be subject to the time dilation.
although... the server wont be as backed up as normal from fighting in system so jumping in would be a little quicker i guess!
and btw im glad you're in support of this Mittani! i see my vote didnt go to waste! =)
i would like this understood and known to all though, im pretty sure the effect has to be server wide so affecting all systems tied to the server the system is on, therefore in the interests of all players on in the systems hosted on the server it would have to only be implemented on a pre-requested DEDICATED server only. basically fill out those fleet fight notification forms before downtime pretty plz!
this isnt a suggested feature, just pre-empt'ing what i believe CCP would most likely say if they did implement it.
hope that answered some questions for u Tyme Xandr =) CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Maaxeru
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 15:29:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Maaxeru on 05/04/2011 15:32:58 Think about it: Even the OP wrote
Originally by: hired goon It would give reinforcements a chance to arrive to the actual battle rather than at a standoff. This is what we all want when we are on the way and hear the targets being read out over voice comms.
it doesn't alter any mechanics for the game itself within the slow down scenario. This keeps it from encouraging metagame "So if we bring this many we can have X effect, we can use this!", since all it does is literally slow the game down if it gets to a lag situation.
While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging!
You are only essentially creating synthetic lag (the newly increased cycle time versus existing non-responsive modules) and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle.
If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option. Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false.
This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time.
At fanfest, did talk with the Dev who champions this idea and pointed these realities out. Even he agreed that the consequences could be exactly what is explained above.
If anything, this proposal should be called the "lag on steroids fix".
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 16:35:00 -
[253]
Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 05/04/2011 16:39:33
Originally by: Maaxeru
While slowing down cycle-times would not reduce alpha damage, it would reduce DPS, hence allowing for longer battles. Longer battles means, as the OP wrote, time for more reinforcements to enter the target system and time for those dead to re-enter the battle. The very thing you are attempting at fixing (lag due to blobs) is the thing you are encouraging!
if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state.
Originally by: Maaxeru
...and creating a system that encourages even larger numbers of participants in a battle.
from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating?
Originally by: Maaxeru
If you are in a super and the whole world starts flashing red, you have a much greater chance with increased cycle-times to opt to exit the battle via the old Crtl-Q option.
as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics?
less lag benefits both parties of a fight... u DO realise this right? less lag means in actual fact less server calls per second so more chance of being able to lock and alpha something off the field. plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system.
Originally by: Maaxeru
Which means fewer dead caps and supers. Hence the OPs suggestion that there are no meta-game aspects of this proposal are false.
what you call incurred meta gaming aspects of this proposal im pretty sure everyone at CCP would call a c t u a l designed game mechanics. fair enough game mechanics would be stretched to an extent but they wont be utterly annihilated by the current clusterf**k situation happening.
Originally by: Maaxeru
This proposal would also certainly help the largest of Alliances / Coalitions, and be another nail in the mid- to small Alliance's coffins. (Note: I am a member of an Alliance in a Coalition, but pointing this out to be fair.) More chances to turn the tide of a losing battle by calling in another group of people, but now with even more time if you are calling people from further away. Another hidden meta-game aspect of the proposal for battles where one or more of the participants didn't have a chance to monkey with game mechanics ahead of time.
i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight.
TL;DR...
i love the fact people cry at game fixes that means they loose an edge they shouldnt have even had in the first place! since when should a game be augmented to allow the continuation of bugs and exploits than actually played using the original designers mechanics???? CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Maaxeru
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 18:35:00 -
[254]
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud if i dont recall the whole war on lag is to streamline server performance to allow players to fight lag free... but its been seen that the more headroom u give the more players enter and fight. this although isnt a bad thing in principle as the perfect situation ccp's technical team want would be to handle any size fight lag free. theyre goal is to slowly close the gap from the current situation to this perfect state.
All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself.
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud from what you're saying it sounds like you're very much opposed to wanting a beautifully streamlined system capable of handling any size fleet fight. i guess the reasoning would be that opponents outgunned would have to actually fight fairly and actually bring in game tactics into use rather then metagaming/intentional server crash tactics to succeed against the odds. tell me another game where this isnt considered deliberate hacking or cheating?
Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished.
And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death.
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud as apposed to having the whole server locked down with 3 1/2 hours of lag not knowing if your multi billion isk ship has survived or not through absolutely no fault of your own, your fc's or the games actual in built mechanics?
That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position.
In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers.
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud plus you do realise that ships logging off take time to align and warp out from the field, let alone the aggression timer that has to go before the ship actually disappears from the system.
Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses.
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud i agree a large alliance/coalition that has stagnated and become carebares shouldnt be allowed to keep space by game mechanics but something like that would not by sheer behavior muscle up enough to fight blob vs blob regardless of being allowed more time to rally more members to the fight, purely for the fact they just wont fight.
We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle.
But yes: If a fleet / alliance / coalition just won't fight, it should die. But that goes beyond the conversation here.
|
Zirise
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 03:35:00 -
[255]
Originally by: The Mittani time dilation is the holy grail enabling of epic fleet fights. this is about to get a ****load of attention.
Sweet.
|
Egilmonsc
Massively Mob
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 05:04:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Egilmonsc on 06/04/2011 05:03:57 "Bullet time"
Like Max Payne with Spaceships. Supported. --- Where we're going, we won't need eyes to see. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 10:39:00 -
[257]
Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 06/04/2011 10:43:42 PART 1 of 2 (im very very sorry!! :S)
Originally by: Maaxeru
All this proposal would do is replace the current server lag with intended module lag. Six of one and a half dozen of another. AND, because it allows for more people to enter the battle, does not counter the essential element of lag: The blob itself.
current server lag consists of a variety of different types of lag. yes this proposal doesnt fix all of them but it DOES offer a fix for one of the more annoying ones for players on the client side and thats module lag. as i can practically guarantee at least half of the players in fleet fights re-activate and resend module requests to the server when their modules stick and continuously re-cycle. the increased cycle times due to time dialation would reduce the amount of re-requests for modules, reducing the "a**hole" effect as bosse i think put it! lol! this is a pro-active fix to reduce the amount of re-requests by players in combat, thats the idea.
Originally by: Maaxeru
Quite the opposite: I am in favor of streamlined battles that require tactics over solely numbers. But, as was stated in the roundtable on the matter, if you open the door to 2000 man fights, people will bring in 2500. Open it to 2500, they will bring in 3000. This proposal will not change that. And then you have traditional lag AND now defacto module lag. Nothing accomplished.
yes it is true that previous experiences in opening the limit to higher fleet numbers have seen higher numbers than expected but this is not a linear thing... there IS a limit to how many people can be rallied we just havent seen the top of that curve yet. it doesnt mean we should give up when the going gets tough. nothing easily attained is worth it! this proposal WILL help reduce emorage from module lag, which generally causes module re-activations/re-requests to the server thats unnecessary.
so in summary yes this doesnt tackle module lag in a perfect world, but when do u EVER experience a perfect world scenario in the real world? you dont!
This proposal reduces the chance of emorage from module lag in large scale combat and therefore reduces the amount of re-requests for the same things in the server. plus with the reduction of the speed of battles you reduce the amount of necessary normal activations compared to a full speed battle.
Originally by: Maaxeru
And, though I agree with you that the Eve-mechanic of crashing nodes when things go south is reprehensible, nothing proposed here will stop other methods of deliberately causing node-death.
thats very true.. and it was never ment to!!! the same tactics to cause node death will still be possible. BUT.. and this is a biiig but, massive amounts of server requests by players will be extremely obvious in comparison to players genuinely waiting for their modules to cycle at the longer durations.
if anything Bosse could write an automatic program that can hunt down clients sending massive amounts of requests compared to a normal amount for a particular ship (as SC's will be putting out more requests to the server from fighters etc than an ecm BS for example.) what bosse wants to do with these people is up to him and CCP, but forcing a client DC with a re-logging cooldown timer i dont think would be that harsh bearing in mind what that person is trying to do.
tbc... CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 11:11:00 -
[258]
Part 2 of 2
Originally by: Maaxeru
That is why many FCs prefer not to drop into lagfests if avoidable. Look at the prolonged dance just this week between NC. and NC up north. Both sides decided to not drop into that situation rather then rather then risk their caps / supers with lag uncertainty. And in countless other instances where a fleet was stood down because the enemy was already in position.
In a way, current lag does force some strategy. This proposal creates more of a free-for-all approach to blobbing with even higher numbers of conventionals and capitals / supers.
No, as i had said before the proposal helps fix module lag and reduce unnecessary re-requests. Yes you could say that the reduction in re-requests might mean lag when jumping in to a new system would be reduced, but i doubt it would be abolished entirely.
Originally by: Maaxeru
Yes - but with the reduced DPS due to module times being increased, the chances to kill a SC or Titan go down before it deagresses.
you do realise that this fix is designed to augment ANYTHING in the node that has a time based element in its calculations... that includes de-agression timers.. so yes DPS will be reduced but EVERYTHING combat related scales to the same degree. so you would have more time to kill that super because it would take longer to de-agress.
Originally by: Maaxeru
We have seen fleets sent home for fear of crashing nodes (when things were going in that party's favor). Or being told they were too far from the battle. IF the module-cycle-timer does accomplish anything (and, last I checked, there are MANY other elements that contribute to lag that this proposal does not cover), those forces will now enter the battle.
sure, thats if you want to jump a massive fleet into a less lagged system that it would normally be, but the amount of request sent and needed to be recieved by that fleet to actively start pvp'ing is a lot more than the fleet already loaded and on grid.. so current strategic decisions on jumping in still applies. the increased module time would partially re-ballance this to what the original game mechanics were intended to do, and thats what we all want!!
The only people who dont want that are people who want to carry on using metagaming/node-crashing advantages they shouldnt really have in the first place!
currently in massive lag fleet battles your ability to pvp is irrelevent. its almost purely guesswork whether you'd live or die, and you're totally at the mercy of random elements that 99% of people dont understand and cannot predict. so at the moment yes its a blob fest that means if u blob bigger u win. but the less lag affects players ability to PVP the more skill and battlefield tactics trumps blob size.
im done now, thank GOD!! :S CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Misaki Yuuko
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 14:51:00 -
[259]
good idea is good
|
Mamba Lev
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.04.06 18:02:00 -
[260]
+10
|
|
Raid'En
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 18:35:00 -
[261]
seems you win ---------------- ** Wormhole Trading ** |
Zen Sarum
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:54:00 -
[262]
This is feeding a symptom.
The symptom is everyone crowding in one system.
what we need is 200 people in 10 systems fighting for sov and with each other.. not 2000 people all in the same system / 2 systems not fighting each other. If you blob you should fail and lose sov.. (yes you are going to need to organise and run multiple fleets to win, Fun stuff).
This is the only way forward which is sustainable.
It however requires devs to grow a brain and create a multifaceted sov system not based on ALL SIT HERE IN ONE SYSTEM AND GRIND TIMERS, this is not fun and is not a sandbox and will always cause this problem.
A first step helpful step in this would also be for the NC to realise this is the problems, and stop blobbing and whining about the lag they cause and then demanding action to fix the symptom they created.
As such I do not support this idea as it fixes nothing.
|
Tau Ching Yu
|
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:48:00 -
[263]
Supported. Currently lag turns a large fight in to a multiple billion isk dice roll, and anyone coming in to the party late doesn't get to play. I'd rather be annoyed at extremely slow moving ships than the hellish conditions currently going on.
Also, Eve: Bullet Time may knock out one of the reasons to blob people don't like to mention: If you fill a system with your fleet, the enemy can't load before they are dead and the "grid holders" win by default. Swap that out for a situation where people would have to fight or flee in slow motion, and they will either live with it or come up with ways to not have everyone on grid at once.
|
Calathea Sata
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 01:49:00 -
[264]
This idea needs to be strongly put down, because of reasons below.
Originally posted in a thread in General Discussions.
Time Dilation will not work.
Formalizing lag as a game mechanic, really? That is really, really the worst way possible of fixing the problem, the problem of "whoever brings the most wins thus making everyone blobing as big a blob as possible". It will not fix the problem, only easing the syndrome, simply because of people will always try to bring as many as possible into the fight and the system will always be stretched outside its limit. Formalizing lag (Time Dilation) can ony ease out that much of lag and people will just keep bringing in more and more people until the server cannot afford the workload again. Moreover, it simply sounds ridiculous and immersion breaking.
Lag is a natural product of the current game design itself: the fantasy of unlimited numbers of ship fighting together vs the realistic capabilities of the internet and the servers. As long as bringing as many ships into the fight as possible means easier wins, people will do it. Time Dilation won't work. Instead CCP should think about the game design itself: is the concept of an unlimited amount of ships fighting realistic? Perhaps 1000 vs 1000 will not be too different than 2000 vs 2000 simply because the screen and overview cannot contain that much information? Perhaps it is not 1000 but 500? How should we discourage people going over 500, maybe we can create some mechanisms to eliminate the advantages of bringing in more than 500 ships? Etc etc, I am only illustrating an example. I am sure there are better ideas than this one; I am sure someone can think of many more better ideas. But Time Dilation is the worst solution possible.
Lag cannot be solved, only designed out
Lag will always be present as long as the mechanics do not change: people will just bring in more and more until the server breaks, even if the server can run 10x faster than now. The game mechanics itself is to blame, not the coding or network itself (but it is relevant). I think it is not a hard concept to understand. The game mechanics simply need to be designed to accommodate realistic numbers. Instead of not limiting the number of ships on grid at all (which simply encourages bigger and bigger blobs) there should be at least some sort of discouragement of simply spamming quantity of ships(it is pretty stupid to be honest), if not hard limits on the game itself (max number of friendlies on-grid, max number of ships doing effective DPS to a target, etc). The game needs designed, unlike the current "no design" design which will always, always be broken by bigger and bigger blobs.
|
Ganthrithor
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 05:09:00 -
[265]
Awe so m
e
i
d
e
a
!
|
Astroka
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 05:48:00 -
[266]
Originally by: klyeme I see 1 large problem in this.
While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there."
The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state.
Pretty much this - and, if this restriction was put in place, they might as well just limit the number of people in the system and skip this whole idea altogether.
====================================== "Rawr" means "I love you" in dinosaur! ====================================== |
Khalis Sanguar
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 07:10:00 -
[267]
A simple, yet beautiful solution. Great idea!
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 09:49:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Astroka
Originally by: klyeme I see 1 large problem in this.
While time for the people fighting would slow down, other areas left in the game wouldn't. This would allow large numbers of support ships to come to the aid of the fleet in that system, inducing a metagame "slow down the system so our reinforcements have something to reinforce when they get there."
The only solution I can see is to make the gates and cynos only allow jumps out of the system when the system goes into this state.
Pretty much this - and, if this restriction was put in place, they might as well just limit the number of people in the system and skip this whole idea altogether.
this is certainly something i would prefer when time dialation gets to a certain level.
I would like to stress that jumping a new fleet into a system with time dialation in motion would still have lag from all the differing calls to the server needed. it would affect the fleet jumping in most and not the fleet on grid. So even with time dialation in effect theres a strategic decision to jump people into a system, much like there is now. plz plz plz read the entire discussion before posting! all of these have been discussed to an acceptable state so far. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 10:13:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Calathea Sata
Formalizing lag as a game mechanic, really? That is really, really the worst way possible of fixing the problem, the problem of "whoever brings the most wins thus making everyone blobing as big a blob as possible". It will not fix the problem, only easing the syndrome, simply because of people will always try to bring as many as possible into the fight and the system will always be stretched outside its limit.
honnest to GOD... READ THE WHOLE DISCUSSION before posting!!
Originally by: Calathea Sata
Formalizing lag (Time Dilation) can ony ease out that much of lag and people will just keep bringing in more and more people until the server cannot afford the workload again. Moreover, it simply sounds ridiculous and immersion breaking.
if you're all for immersion, the id have to say this... a bit of eve fiction about titans was that a whole planets tidal forces were affected by merely the presence of a titan too close to a planet. let alone 40 of them in the same system along with dozens of supers and 100's of carriers releasing insanely collosal amounts of energy in a struggle for domminence. that level of activity and energy release would affect the fabric of space. you could even say the mass of all of the ships on one grid would be soo collossal that it'd cause a gravity well that woould cause a time dialation effect.
Originally by: Calathea Sata
Lag is a natural product of the current game design itself: the fantasy of unlimited numbers of ship fighting together vs the realistic capabilities of the internet and the servers. As long as bringing as many ships into the fight as possible means easier wins, people will do it.
no sh*t! you tell me in what situation in real life that wont occur... my 5000 tank devision beats your 50 tanks! seriously? no way! my 50 tanks should beat your 5000 tanks... grr i hate the real world.. sum1 should change the way physics and logic works so that i have the advantage always!
Originally by: Calathea Sata
Time Dilation won't work. Instead CCP should think about the game design itself: is the concept of an unlimited amount of ships fighting realistic? Perhaps 1000 vs 1000 will not be too different than 2000 vs 2000 simply because the screen and overview cannot contain that much information? Perhaps it is not 1000 but 500? How should we discourage people going over 500, maybe we can create some mechanisms to eliminate the advantages of bringing in more than 500 ships? Etc etc, I am only illustrating an example. I am sure there are better ideas than this one; I am sure someone can think of many more better ideas. But Time Dilation is the worst solution possible.
im sure your idea would work if no one had any vested interest in anything on this game... but if that was the case then eve wouldnt be eve. if the concept u want above is really the game u want i have a simple solution for you... go play A SINGLE PLAYER GAME!
the fact 1000's of people appear in one system is because they all believe in the need to fight for a common goal.
There is an upper limit to the amount of people that a finite sized group of individuals can call upon to fight for a common goal. it wont scale to infinity. and if you think it will then u should check urself into some form of common-sense clinic, or failing that just announce yourself as clinicly insane as you seem to have the desire to be as absurd in your views as everyone else in those institutions. CSM Prop 1 CSM Prop 2 |
Araviel
Epic.
|
Posted - 2011.04.12 10:19:00 -
[270]
i think this is a interesting idea and worth trying
MAXSuicide> Araviels bat is even more powerful than the nerf bat.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |