Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello, I am relatively a new player so I am aware what I am going to offer will have many con's from the view of oldschool players well and definitely the Goons would hate me :))
Anyway here it goes... Currently The big Alliances have such domination over the Null Systems its that no small corp or even a small-mediocre cannot hold on any systems without getting blues to their bigger brothers; whom from time to time decide to go wild and destroy any small alliance just for gigles (Ofcourse they dont war after each others stations / systems as the biggest alliances hold the insane passive isk making moons and would cause each other untold destruction if they did) But they can simply decide to rip apart some smallar corp / alliance with forming a say 500Drake blob or whatever, and just annihilating any opposition with the force of sheer numbers "regardless of skill or tactic"
In order to remove the numbers meaning so much, CCP could introduce some "Smaller Systems" or "Bottle Neck" systems through medium or larger ones so that "ANY GIVEN TIME, THE SOVEREIGNTY HOLDER CAN HAVE 100 (Decide number) SHIPS MAX FLYING AND any NON-SOV HOLDER SHIP LIMIT IS ALSO 100... This time there would be more like Chess battles and much smaller alliances could hold their ground even vs. Goons ... Like giving 300Spartans a chance vs 250,000Persions by putting them to the "PASS" instead of open ground where the spartans would be massacred in seconds...
Please put your thoughts.
Thx in advance
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1203
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Spv holders log in 100 of their guys, and bring in 100 alts/friends.
Now the system is literally untouchable. |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Well Thought !!
Though 1. New mechanic could be introduced to counter that.
2. No Small or even Mediocre Alliance could log 100+100 ppl just to wait for enemy assault which is not even coming. And when the attack comes... the slots are filled by the enemy.
Still anyway it would be better than the current situtation where "Big Brothers are Blue or Not ?? Thats what matters" Curently no two alliance in Null can even fight without getting pwned by the big brother of the other... |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2408
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
"CCP... it's unfair that other people have numerical advantages over us despite all the effort they put in to maintaining it... create a mechanic to get rid of this advantage and artificially level the playing field."
Oh yeah... and if you are limited to bringing 100 ships then you bring in ships setups that can't really be countered by 100 other people. Pantheon carriers are designed to hold off against superior numbers and can bulldoze their way through any force that "stands still."
You also can't stop 3rd parties (alt or allied alliances) from coming in and aiding or destroying everyone because the server does not distinguish between friendly, hostile, or neutral players in null-sec (those are player made distinctions). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
No its like that :
CCP its unfair that, regardless of what u try to do, 400kids can simply bulldoze their way through any solid though defence, mere numbers is the only and sole thing that matters as eventually if u r not a part of the big brother you cannot exist...
And well I dont believe the big Alliances would be "destroyed" by that.. Still very few corps / alliances can field 100 ships any given time (and remember 100 is merely a number which can be discussed and decided for say 200 ? 50 ? ) And giving the smaller alliances a "chance" should not be viewed as tearz |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1203
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Storm Airkian wrote:Well Thought !!
Though 1. New mechanic could be introduced to counter that.
2. No Small or even Mediocre Alliance could log 100+100 ppl just to wait for enemy assault which is not even coming. And when the attack comes... the slots are filled by the enemy.
Still anyway it would be better than the current situtation where "Big Brothers are Blue or Not ?? Thats what matters" Curently no two alliance in Null can even fight without getting pwned by the big brother of the other...
I never said the second hundred had to be in the alliance. They could very easily be a mix of cyno alts, random locals, friends of the alliance, tourists and bored neutral gangs looking for good fights. If you can get one hundred in, the second really wouldn't be hard. Even fifty random alts and allies would make the fight near unwinnable for the aggressor.
As for new mechanics, they'd be gamed just as easily as the basic idea. It really wouldn't be difficult. |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Storm Airkian wrote:Well Thought !!
Though 1. New mechanic could be introduced to counter that.
2. No Small or even Mediocre Alliance could log 100+100 ppl just to wait for enemy assault which is not even coming. And when the attack comes... the slots are filled by the enemy.
Still anyway it would be better than the current situtation where "Big Brothers are Blue or Not ?? Thats what matters" Curently no two alliance in Null can even fight without getting pwned by the big brother of the other... I never said the second hundred had to be in the alliance. They could very easily be a mix of cyno alts, random locals, friends of the alliance, tourists and bored neutral gangs looking for good fights. If you can get one hundred in, the second really wouldn't be hard. Even fifty random alts and allies would make the fight near unwinnable for the aggressor. As for new mechanics, they'd be gamed just as easily as the basic idea. It really wouldn't be difficult.
I agree with u I did not mean the other 100 would be in same alliance as well... I get your point and its a solid one... Still I believe u cant sit 150-200 or whatever ppl waiting there.. and if u can do that you can do it only in a few choice systems at the same time which would be way better than a big alliance holding 90 systems at the same time (like now) just because no one dare to get 1 in fear of hostile response... |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:41:00 -
[8] - Quote
If this change was implemented alliances like TEST (hi!) and Goons would become incapable of losing systems.
Also, even if this system was somehow implemented in a way that couldn't easily be abused, people seem to forget that TEST and Goons are no longer just "that bunch of low sp players who have no e-honoure" and both actually have lots of high-sp pilots. Heck, Goons could probably just put 100 bap-dreads in a system to hold if this change happened.
P.S. Also there's that whole thing that everyone and their mother has pointed out and will continue to do so: It would be really terrible to punish large alliances for being good at the game. |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:If this change was implemented alliances like TEST (hi!) and Goons would become incapable of losing systems.
Also, even if this system was somehow implemented in a way that couldn't easily be abused, people seem to forget that TEST and Goons are no longer just "that bunch of low sp players who have no e-honoure" and both actually have lots of high-sp pilots. Heck, Goons could probably just put 100 bap-dreads in a system to hold if this change happened.
P.S. Also there's that whole thing that everyone and their mother has pointed out and will continue to do so: It would be really terrible to punish large alliances for being good at the game.
Yep I dont believe Large Alliances should be "punished" and afterall that large alliance could keep sending wave after wave high cost ships to eventualy overwhelm the defense...
Well they would even LIKE it if they like some "challenge" in game... I doubt they find it soo very fun to win matches where they would still win if every one shio had fit only 1 gun and 1 module...
Ofc a Tengu pilot who loves to hunt Retrievers wont like this idea... But any Tengu pilot who would like to fight at least vs. a T2 Cruiser would find this a good chance... (If u get my point) and still no small alliance could possibly try and capture a big brothers prime or valued system ... |
Madlof Chev
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
126
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Why don't you make some friends about it |
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
164
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
I have even better idea: Give alliances Magical Soul Power, and if pilot count in a fleet is smaller than the opposing fleet your ships get Arcane Weapons Of Death On The Storm buff that makes your guns shoot Seed Of Corruption, a dot that ticks for 10% of enemy ehp passing resistances and after the ship is destroyed is spread in 20km radius to all ships that dont have Magical Soul Power activated.
|
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'm still trying to understand what's broken about a numerically superior force being able to defend the territory they've claimed.
The way to 'fix' big Nullsec alliances is to go recruit a metric ton of sycophants from unrelated forums and social outlets, build a gigantic alliance of your own, and topple their tower. Sound like a lot of work? It is, and these current nullsec alliances have already done it. I wouldn't hold your breath for CCP to help you play catch up. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Storm Airkian wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:If this change was implemented alliances like TEST (hi!) and Goons would become incapable of losing systems.
Also, even if this system was somehow implemented in a way that couldn't easily be abused, people seem to forget that TEST and Goons are no longer just "that bunch of low sp players who have no e-honoure" and both actually have lots of high-sp pilots. Heck, Goons could probably just put 100 bap-dreads in a system to hold if this change happened.
P.S. Also there's that whole thing that everyone and their mother has pointed out and will continue to do so: It would be really terrible to punish large alliances for being good at the game. Yep I dont believe Large Alliances should be "punished" and afterall that large alliance could keep sending wave after wave high cost ships to eventualy overwhelm the defense... Well they would even LIKE it if they like some "challenge" in game... I doubt they find it soo very fun to win matches where they would still win if every one shio had fit only 1 gun and 1 module... Ofc a Tengu pilot who loves to hunt Retrievers wont like this idea... But any Tengu pilot who would like to fight at least vs. a T2 Cruiser would find this a good chance... (If u get my point) and still no small alliance could possibly try and capture a big brothers prime or valued system ...
No small alliance could capture anything. Your suggestions would make the game EVEN HARDER for smaller alliances in 0.0 and also introduce needless, unexplainable restrictions to the game. This wouldn't be a challenge, it would be tedium (and once again, I mean that it would if it worked like you want it to, which it wouldn't). |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:I have even better idea: Give alliances Magical Soul Power, and if pilot count in a fleet is smaller than the opposing fleet your ships get Arcane Weapons Of Death On The Storm buff that makes your guns shoot Seed Of Corruption, a dot that ticks for 10% of enemy ehp passing resistances and after the ship is destroyed is spread in 20km radius to all ships that dont have Magical Soul Power activated.
I can't believe you forgot to suggest Magic Missile. |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
166
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote: I can't believe you forgot to suggest Magic Missile.
That might be a little op, maybe only when Magical Soul Power level reaches beyond 9000. |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Well I was aware the Goonz would hate the idea... Still as I understand your point is : Game is intended that you are not meant to exist in null if your body count is less than a zerg.. Anyway that was merely what it was "an idea"
And if the best thing u come to counter is "Dont hate goonz, we are pro - we r perfect u fail" it means it could work..
btw Warcraft has that kind of idea in PvP (not world PvP but battlegrounds - arenas- PvP zones ) and despite tonz of killers that game still works... |
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:I'm still trying to understand what's broken about a numerically superior force being able to defend the territory they've claimed.
The way to 'fix' big Nullsec alliances is to go recruit a metric ton of sycophants from unrelated forums and social outlets, build a gigantic alliance of your own, and topple their tower. Sound like a lot of work? It is, and these current nullsec alliances have already done it. I wouldn't hold your breath for CCP to help you play catch up.
Its definitely "not" broken, its the way of the real world history even... Just city states failed to exist on their own...
Also it not required to be implemented to whole eve.. They could just implement a "Region" with the idea which our superior goon wannabe's would not be able to dominate with numbers so smaller alliances could live and thrive in even fighting each other over small gains (a single system ? two ? ) |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Storm Airkian wrote:Well I was aware the Goonz would hate the idea... Still as I understand your point is : Game is intended that you are not meant to exist in null if your body count is less than a zerg.. Anyway that was merely what it was "an idea"
And if the best thing u come to counter is "Dont hate goonz, we are pro - we r perfect u fail" it means it could work..
btw Warcraft has that kind of idea in PvP (not world PvP but battlegrounds - arenas- PvP zones ) and despite tonz of killers that game still works...
Goons wouldn't hate the idea. As I already pointed out, they would love it for good reason: It would make then invincible. |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 18:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
Storm Airkian wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:I'm still trying to understand what's broken about a numerically superior force being able to defend the territory they've claimed.
The way to 'fix' big Nullsec alliances is to go recruit a metric ton of sycophants from unrelated forums and social outlets, build a gigantic alliance of your own, and topple their tower. Sound like a lot of work? It is, and these current nullsec alliances have already done it. I wouldn't hold your breath for CCP to help you play catch up. Its definitely "not" broken, its the way of the real world history even... Just city states failed to exist on their own... Also it not required to be implemented to whole eve.. They could just implement a "Region" with the idea which our superior goon wannabe's would not be able to dominate with numbers so smaller alliances could live and thrive in even fighting each other over small gains (a single system ? two ? )
Isn't that what NPC nullsec is for? Small alliances squabbling over systems that they'll never really have true control of? |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Last Resort.
460
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 18:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
I agree with you, that trying hard in a small alliance is a pain, and these Blob players live in a safer environment then Hi-SEC so they are big care-bears!
I already lived in "the last independent alliance of scaling pass", 2 systems sov, no outpost, no ice belt, constantly being atacked by big blobs. it was a good time this day we called some frinds to help us althoug: http://evenews24.com/2012/03/19/disaster-strikes-for-fail-the-legion-drops-it-like-its-hot/
Then we moved to WH-Space...
Now we are at hi-sec running incursions....
So... Don't expect that these guys in the forum to understand your game-play.
Although, the solution for this problems lies on features that easy small aliances gameplay. the blob will always be a threat... but if ccp add random ice belts... fix technetium... revamp sov and revamp pos... we might have a chance... Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
|
Storm Airkian
Unified Combatants Pwnasaurus.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 18:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Domanique Altares wrote:Storm Airkian wrote:Domanique Altares wrote:I'm still trying to understand what's broken about a numerically superior force being able to defend the territory they've claimed.
The way to 'fix' big Nullsec alliances is to go recruit a metric ton of sycophants from unrelated forums and social outlets, build a gigantic alliance of your own, and topple their tower. Sound like a lot of work? It is, and these current nullsec alliances have already done it. I wouldn't hold your breath for CCP to help you play catch up. Its definitely "not" broken, its the way of the real world history even... Just city states failed to exist on their own... Also it not required to be implemented to whole eve.. They could just implement a "Region" with the idea which our superior goon wannabe's would not be able to dominate with numbers so smaller alliances could live and thrive in even fighting each other over small gains (a single system ? two ? ) Isn't that what NPC nullsec is for? Small alliances squabbling over systems that they'll never really have true control of?
Yep, but this would let smaller alliances "build and improve" their home space as well... Technically its not much different than NPC Null...
Also This would not make goonz invincible or useless... Only thing it does is decreasing their blob efficiency... Now they would face their enemies with closer numbers instead of 450capitals ripping apart a POS defended by 17 Battleships... And ofc just like the 300 spartans , the spartans would eventually die if the goonz cared to send 100ship wave after wave just to overwhelm the enemy... Its just giving the defenders a chance , Its not penalizing the big ... |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 18:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Storm Airkian wrote:
Also This would not make goonz invincible or useless... Only thing it does is decreasing their blob efficiency... Now they would face their enemies with closer numbers instead of 450capitals ripping apart a POS defended by 17 Battleships... And ofc just like the 300 spartans , the spartans would eventually die if the goonz cared to send 100ship wave after wave just to overwhelm the enemy... Its just giving the defenders a chance , Its not penalizing the big ...
I think the point he's trying to make that you are missing is that if a control is implemented to limit the number of pilots in/able to enter a system, then large alliances like Goons will simply PUT that many people in system, making it impossible for anyone else to even assault them there. Also, those types of ship restrictions have in the past not affected logged off pilots for obvious reasons. That being the case, all the large alliances have to do is park a bunch of alts in said systems, and log them off. If you fill the system up and deny them outside reinforcements, they simply start logging on their pre-staged alts. Instant backup that thwarts the pilot restriction.
IE, it simply reinforces their ability to retain control and numerical superiority over a smaller force, or 'makes them invincible.' |
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 19:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
tell me again why the larger alliances wouldn't just wait at the entrance to you bottle neck system?
this doesn't feel very sandboxy to me. not to mention a coalition could surely just fill the system with two fleets so nobody could attack at all.
the same answer applies to this problem as it always has. if you are getting curbstomped by someone who can field significantly greater numbers than you... get some friends, crying about it will not help you. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
496
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 19:10:00 -
[24] - Quote
why should bigger groups of people NOT rule parts of space? |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 19:36:00 -
[25] - Quote
Renting space is an excellent option for new, smaller alliances to get into null sec. If you make it, great! If you're not completely terrible and grow slowly with excellent leadership, someone might just pick you up as an ally.
If you want to be able to plant you flag in the dirt with only a fight you can win, I'd suggest you go live in NPC null, move on to renting and eventually grow into a solid alliance. |
Mr Holla
Shadow Incursion Insidious Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 19:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
main reasons we have OP blobs,.. is coz of coalitions change the standing systems to stop mega eve coalitions and then u just ahve lots of allaince trying to control there own space,.... an idea what would **** ppl off but would stop blobs being soo big,... and make it harder to defand space when u are being attacked from multipal sides
smaller fleets = less lag and more tatical options |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Last Resort.
461
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 21:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:why should bigger groups of people NOT rule parts of space?
They rule. The question is why small groups can't rule no part of space? Can't they rule a small part while the big group rule a big part? Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
Dori Tos
Galactic Innovations
11
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 21:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:why should bigger groups of people NOT rule parts of space? They rule. The question is why small groups can't rule no part of space? Can't they rule a small part while the big group rule a big part?
They already can rule small parts of space,namely no sov null, WH space and low sec.From there you can start building a stronger alliance, until you are eventually strong enough to take on the big challenges of playing in the major league aka sov null sec.
Will your corp/alliance ever be strong enough for the big league? chances are very slim.But then again,just because YOU fail doesn't mean everyone does, and once in a while stars will align for a particular group, and THEY will become the next big thing.The system is working perfectly fine as it is,Welcome to the space jungle. I'm delicious. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1204
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 22:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:why should bigger groups of people NOT rule parts of space? They rule. The question is why small groups can't rule no part of space? Can't they rule a small part while the big group rule a big part?
That's called 'Renting'.
Why should a big group let a small neutral one exist inside or right on it's borders? It's a glaring security risk. What if the little guys ally with the enemies of the big guys, and suddenly play host to 200 PL supercaps? Or just go roaming the big guy's space to kill their ratters/miners/etc? Why should anyone have to take that chance? |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 22:33:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mr Holla wrote:main reasons we have OP blobs,.. is coz of coalitions change the standing systems to stop mega eve coalitions and then u just ahve lots of allaince trying to control there own space,.... an idea what would **** ppl off but would stop blobs being soo big,... and make it harder to defand space when u are being attacked from multipal sides
smaller fleets = less lag and more tatical options
The standings system in and of itself has pretty much nothing to do with it. Yeah, it makes your allies a pretty blue color in the local chat tab and on the overview. It's a great convenience. But you can see who someone belongs to without that, and alliances and coalitions will still exist. Might it be a bit messier? Sure. Would taking away the ability to set someone 'blue' remove 'NBSI' behavior? No. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |