Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:43:00 -
[1]
I have being toying with a certain concept and I think it could be the right time to share it..... (even though a little voice inside my head tells me I'm asking for trouble )
.... but first I would like to establish some facts about the current state of warfare in EVE.
FACTS (N.B if anybody would like to dispute these facts/assumptions.. pls feel free to do so)
- The biggest enemy facing large fleets in the game in its current state is LAG. - CCP know that LAG is a problem, and we must assume they are doing everything within their power to alleviate it. (if we cant assume this then there is no point playing the game at all) - LAG isn't going to go away anytime soon, in fact it may steadily deteriorate before it gets any better. - Engagements even at non-POS locations, over 100 vs 100 are not feasible. - Engagments at Battle POS are most succeptible to lag and give the defender a distinct advantage as POS guns do not suffer from said lag.
SOLUTION :
- All major alliances agree to a cap on fleet engagements. - 100 vs 100 for open field engagements (gates and planets) - 100 vs 50? at L Battle POS locations where the defender already has the distinct advantage.
PROBLEMS that could arise from the implementation of such a solution :
Alliances with newer members are at a disadvantage vs established alliances : This will be true, however without a cap the newer alliance would have to bring at least twice as many pilots to make up for the lack in skills making a 100 vs 100 into a 100 vs 200 which = LAGfest and not feasible anyhow. Newer alliances must therefore launch simultaneous attacks at different locations or simply picks a fight with somebody of their own skill level.
What do you do if you have 200 willing pilots? : Launch two pronged attacks or have a fleet of 100 in reserve should the first battle be lost. In such a case the first fleet could be replenished by the second.
How can it be guaranteed that the enemy will honour such an arrangement: This is the tricky part... the big 4 power blocks ASCN, BoB, D2, LV would have to actually sign a document stating that they would no longer field fleets above the 100 mark. The remaining EVE alliances would have to then follow suit or face the wrath of the big 4. Alliances not honouring such an arrangement would be EVE pariahs...
Capping fleet sizes breaks the immersion of the game: 200 vs 200 (sometimes more) lagfests where nobody can activate modules and nodes drop doesn't?
Well I think Ive covered some important issues that could arise... but I think the basic fact that we are stuck with is that..
EVE cannot handle big fleet engagements. (over the 100 vs 100 mark)
Even if this idea gets ridiculed (quite possible ) I hope it does get some alliance leaders thinking... I believe that playing the "numbers" game is not working and is killing the game. And I don't think its just CCP's fault... no hardware can handle the numbers which the big alliances sometimes throw at the server.
|
Kuentai
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:49:00 -
[2]
Sounds fair enough, the cause being for fun, will also cause the alliances that rely on massive blobbing to rethink their tactics making things more interesting.
Doubt it will go through though, this is a game but the powermad masses tend to forget that :P.
-
"The good man has few enemies, but the ruthless... None." |
Nikita Fontaine
Caldari g guild
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:50:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Nikita Fontaine on 11/09/2006 14:52:01 The big question is 'why should you give the enemy a 'fair' fight when you are trying to protect something much more valuable to you than the enemy'?
Edit: I am not denying that close/more equal fights are certainly more exciting. ----------------------------------------------- Great minds think alike but fools seldom differ
Directors are like buttons they hold things together.
|
Omeega
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:57:00 -
[4]
you cannot force someone not to come to battle.
Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:59:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nikita Fontaine
The big question is 'why should you give the enemy a 'fair' fight when you are trying to protect something much more valuable to you than the enemy'?
Edit: I am not denying that close/more equal fights are certainly more exciting.
If we went on the assumption that the 'big 4' would agree to such a convention... there would no longer be a choice.
It would be a case of sticking to capping or else...
The truth is that this whole concept is only something that would work if the 'big 4' agreed to it.
And I'm the first to admit that thats a massive "IF"
|
Raid
Caldari Tyrell Corp Curse Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 14:59:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Raid on 11/09/2006 14:59:54
Originally by: Nez Perces SOLUTION :
- All major alliances agree to a cap on fleet engagements. - 100 vs 100 for open field engagements (gates and planets) - 100 vs 50? at L Battle POS locations where the defender already has the distinct advantage.
Would be nice but such rules would have to be made on the fly. the 100 v 50 fight at a POS will never happen. Why would anyone defend billions of ISK worth of investments with only a portion of their army.
100 vs 100 on open engagments is possible... but again it would have to be on the fly with FC's gettign in contact with each others and designating how it would occur. Its only natural fo people to field as many ships as they can and organized fleet fights would be the only way to insure numbers stay reasonable.
|
El Covah
No Quarter. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:04:00 -
[7]
CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
If a hostile comes with a fleet of 100 pilots and I have 200 pilots ready to defend our assets I would throw them into battle and keep the assets we achieved with lot of our game time. I would be stupid if I don't.
Numbers also make a difference in fleet battles. Even if you have a good FC and far (!) less ships than your enemy you will loose the battle. You can fight outnumbered and win, but if the numbers are too much against you you will loose.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:04:00 -
[8]
Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer. Which ignores the fact of huge fleet battles like the ones you mention only happening during assaults on station systems. Somehow I doubt the defending side will place the enjoyment of a fleet battle above the defense of their station.
Not to mention, suspension of disbelief gets thrown out the window. Each battleship has a supposed 5000 crewmen, so you're looking at 1mil+ peoples lives being tossed away for a 'pistols at dawn' matchup in outer space. But you already covered that.
Oh and I guarantee you that if such a lag treaty were to exist, and be signed.. it would be broken for the explicit purpose of obtaining this "wrath" you speak of. I know I would. And thats assuming these alliances would somehow work together and be willing to toss away hundreds of billions to spank me for ignoring fictional rules in a fictional game..
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
jarack
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:05:00 -
[9]
Edited by: jarack on 11/09/2006 15:05:31 from what i was told. when the creators of eve planned out, the moons / planets were locations of fighting / fleet battles but obviously its more at gates, and nez i have to disagree about the 100 vs 100 that still is not good for a game which i pay ú10 for monthly, i was getting probably 1 fps and it was 80 versus 40
EDIT-
HI NEZ!!! o/
|
Kurieg
Universal Manufacturing Corporation Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:07:00 -
[10]
So, for the "Big 4" to enforce this rule, they would presumably have to violate it in order to bring a large blobbing group to heel. What you are proposing is an anti-lag ROE that needs a lagfest to enforce it.
I'm not quite certain that makes a whole lot of sense even if you assume the "Big 4" cooperate.
I also think we all know what will happen if there are 150 allies watching 50 lose a POS fight in a major system.
But, hey, maybe you're just hoping for a lot of "You guys brought 110, I'm telling BOB/ASCN/D2/LV" threads to spice up this forum?
It's up to CCP.
|
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Raid
Would be nice but such rules would have to be made on the fly. the 100 v 50 fight at a POS will never happen. Why would anyone defend billions of ISK worth of investments with only a portion of their army.
100 vs 100 on open engagments is possible... but again it would have to be on the fly with FC's gettign in contact with each others and designating how it would occur. Its only natural fo people to field as many ships as they can and organized fleet fights would be the only way to insure numbers stay reasonable.
Those of us who followed the TCF campaign's vs D2 or the LV campaigns vs RA will remember that it was the defender that had the advantage even with massively inferior numbers. We heard of sometimes 400 strong fleets attacking a L battle POS with 50 - 75 defenders. It is therefore logical to assume that you do not need equal numbers to successfully defend your L Battle POS.
The defender might be glad to know that they will only face a fleet of 100 max.. and the attacker may be glad to know they will only face a max of 50?
Just because the numbers are pre-arranged in fleet fights it does not mean that the conditions of the battle have to be arranged... fleets could still play hide and seek across systems as long as it was a given that the fleet sizes will remain capped.
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:10:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Max Teranous on 11/09/2006 15:10:46 It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
Max
--------------------
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:11:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:11:37
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer.
Well I would very glad to hear what you think the number one problem is.. I mean every time there is a big fleet engagement the first thing we hear about on the forums.. is
"OMGlag was unbearable couldnt activate modules"
Maybe I'm missing something and I would be happy to be corrected..
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Max Teranous
It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square
|
Max Teranous
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Nez Perces I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square
You'd be in a minority I would think
It could work in individual cases, for example an RP war where both sides arrange a time and place for a 50 vs 50. But in general, nope.
Max
--------------------
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:31:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:32:38
Originally by: Kurieg So, for the "Big 4" to enforce this rule, they would presumably have to violate it in order to bring a large blobbing group to heel. What you are proposing is an anti-lag ROE that needs a lagfest to enforce it.
not necessarily.... several fleets hitting different locations at once, 100 pilots strong, would bring a rogue alliance to heel pretty quickly.
OFC it would mean that the 'big 4' themselves wouldnt break the treaty. It might be some medium sized alliance that in all probability cant field big fleets on a regular basis anyhow..
Its worth remembering that the only entities that can field very large fleets on a regular basis are in the 'big 4' or associated with them.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: El Covah CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
You are quite right, EVE is becoming more and more about teamwork and working together to achieve high end content. Whilst the industrial aspect of this is not susceptible to lag.. the combat aspect of it is.
You gotta ask yourself whats the point in building all these new toys.. DN's, Titans etc... if you will never get to play with them properly as they only come out when there are mega fleets, which go hand in hand with unplayable lag?
K we can say its CCP's fault.. and yeah in some ways it probably is .. but... do you really need mega-fleets to enjoy the game, I mean playing EVE is about having fun.
Atm it seems that the first line of defence for an alliance is to ramp up the numbers... and if the game becomes unplayable.. so be it... our assets are safe.
This may have been k in the past, but when alliances can now field up to 300-400 pilots in one fleet.. its madness...
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:42:00 -
[18]
It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
|
BoinKlasik
Eye of God Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Omeega you cannot force someone not to come to battle.
agreed
also, can you imagine the annoyance of bloody manageing "ok who has the best skills here"?
*doh, I broke my edited sig :/* *cries* this signature was lacking pink, I'll provide it for you. There. Looks better doesn't it? -Eris Fixed it for you. Oh, btw, yarr! ~kieron Didn't I tell you? The damsel moved in with me, we're having a great time. - Wrangler The damsel may not be distressed any more, but how many times does the informant have to be silenced before he gets the message? - Cortes
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:44:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Amerame It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
Even at a death star pos? Even if in your 50 man fleet there are carriers and DN's too?
|
|
Snodgey2004
Mega Modal M0nkeys
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:45:00 -
[21]
I'm sure you'll remember some time ago a similar idea was pushed by someone on these forums and it was ridiculed , maybe not ridiculed but not taken seriously back then too , basically it wouldn't work ,
eg. BoB has a 100 man fleet in a2-v27 , and another a few jumps away , the fleet in a2- engages generic alliance a. , whats to stop the second BoB fleet a few jumps away to "accidently" jump into a2 and finish the alliance a. off for sure ?
You would need a high level of communication and discipline and even if you have that it would all come down to an "accident" which happens , how do you protect against accidents ? I wish I could put into words what I really mean but I am a typical Minmatar dunce basically I don't think it would work
|
Heldane
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:49:00 -
[22]
I can't see alliances like RA or GoonSwsarm following such a treaty. They already don't care what your "Big 4" say or do so why would they bother? The goons seem to be one of the largest creators of lag with their 200+ fleets being so common. If I recall correctly the last 2 GIANT lag issues have involved GS in the XZH fiasco and friday nights battle when they showed up to support RA. Both incidents created horrible lag all over the server and these were the most hotly debated lag threads we've had.
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:51:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:52:15
Originally by: Snodgey2004 I'm sure you'll remember some time ago a similar idea was pushed by someone on these forums and it was ridiculed , maybe not ridiculed but not taken seriously back then too , basically it wouldn't work ,
hehe... no I havent seen that post, If I had I probably wouldnt have posted this thread
Originally by: Snodgey2004
eg. BoB has a 100 man fleet in a2-v27 , and another a few jumps away , the fleet in a2- engages generic alliance a. , whats to stop the second BoB fleet a few jumps away to "accidently" jump into a2 and finish the alliance a. off for sure ?
You would need a high level of communication and discipline and even if you have that it would all come down to an "accident" which happens , how do you protect against accidents ? I wish I could put into words what I really mean but I am a typical Minmatar dunce basically I don't think it would work
K this is where the 100 man cap on fleets must be rigourously enforced at an internal level.. and that means that you dont have 2*100 man fleets engaging at the same time....
I'm sure BoB of all people have the internal communication and discipline to know what their fleets are doing at all times and that BoB FC's don't ignore their RoE.
You don't "accidentally" ambush an enemy fleet with twice the numbers.. something like that is usually intentional.
|
Hawkings SJ
Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[24]
Your idea is based on one concept that is not going to work: It requires that everyone agree when the rules have been broken. Lets say one of the big four, Alliance A, uses 100 man fleets in a way that wins a fight that Alliance B thinks is unfair. Alliance C sides with B, D thinks they are bothe wrong...and viola, the system is in the can.
And since I can't remember the last time all of the big alliances agreed on anything more then "We don't like lag", getting this to work is actually harder then going to Iceland and holding CCP hostage at gunpoint until all the fixes you want are made.
And it has less chance of being made into a TV movie.
|
dalman
Finite Auxiliary
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[25]
The blobs are created by CCP. And if CCP can't handle the lag situation (which they obviously can't), it's time to re-think the way the game is heading in terms of mechanics and features.
Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me |
Kalyster
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:53:00 -
[26]
Agreeing on "who" requires agreeing on "where" and "when". Bye Bye surprise effect... War is about organisation and dedication, not WOW-style gladiator fights.
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:54:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Amerame on 11/09/2006 15:55:24
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Amerame It's impossible to kill a dreadnought with a 50 men fleet if the attacker has half a brain.
Even at a death star pos? Even if in your 50 man fleet there are carriers and DN's too?
Death star damage output on dread is very low, a large arti is roughly equivalent to 1 BS, and considering that pos gun cycle, it's negligible. If the attacker use the regular dreadnought / support fleet configuration I don't see how you could kill the dreadnoughts.
Actually maybe you could with very specific fleets of highly skilled players and some decent carrier support, but that pretty much rule out Goon for instance or any upcomming alliance that does not have access to t2 guns / missiles / carriers.
A dreadnought will tank 50 t1 BS at 100km, and you can't really be closer than that if your opponent has more BS than you do.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Kalyster Agreeing on "who" requires agreeing on "where" and "when". Bye Bye surprise effect...
You don't need a 200 man blob for a surprise effect.. a fleet of 100 is more than sufficient.
If your enemy is unprepared it means they haven't put a fleet together at all.
In EVE surprise attacks are extremely rare.
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:06:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
The real problem is that I fear that as long as the complexity of the fight is in n¦ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless, i'm pretty sure that if the server could handle 300 vs 300, you have alliance bringing 600 people in fight the next day, considering the number of people in the big 4 alliances, they should easily be able to get 1000 or 1500 men fleets, TCF has 800 player in alliance, regularly 100 players in fleets, sometimes 150-200, so the amount of ship ASCN or LV & co could get... I'd rather not even think about it.
If CCP aim to get 300 vs 300 lagless battle it's not going to be enough, they should aim at 2000 people in the same system, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |