EVE Search - War goes on just like before, war goes on

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

War goes on just like before, war goes on - it never ends?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:36:00 - [1] Now don't get me wrong I love a good war, a solid conflict backed up with some big bangs, risk taking and poddings is probably as good as it gets. However, how many wars (other than, occasionally, ones involving small corps) in EVE have ever actually ended conclusively rather than just fizzled out due to boredom or turned into some endless mud wrestling contest with the smack talk on the forums getting dirtier and dirtier? Personally I can only remember one (ages ago), and even in that one the losing side still occasionally claims not to have lost. As far as I can tell alliance wars go on indefinitely because the only way to win a war is to cause so much harm that the losers actually begin to quit the game altogether. Usually alliances are big enough that a solid cadre remains at the centre and the periphery members 'churn' - that is the poorer corps end up leaving the alliance (if they're lucky and move out while they're ahead) or quitting EVE (if they hang on to the bitter end when all their resources are consumed). This leaves things in a state of perpetual warfare, after a month or two the original cause of the war is forgotten and people spend half their time podding each other because they always have and spend the other half flaming each other on the forums over who's kill list is most valid. I believe this is caused by there being no ingame method of actually confirming that a war has been won when the other side won't accept it. You can't seal an area of space off completely (due to instajumps), you can't clear space effectively (due to safe spots), you can't kick a group of people out of offices, etc, etc. I think there should be an ingame way of mutually 'bidding' on war aims which when achieved are actually marked up as a victory for one side and a defeat for the other, possibly with an exchange of assets handled by the game. Shiva will be bringing in some nice changes to the whole alliance/war thing but I really think it's missing a fundamental problem with the current system which pretty much guarantees an eventual slide into a 'dirty' war. What do other people think? _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:36:00 - [2] Now don't get me wrong I love a good war, a solid conflict backed up with some big bangs, risk taking and poddings is probably as good as it gets. However, how many wars (other than, occasionally, ones involving small corps) in EVE have ever actually ended conclusively rather than just fizzled out due to boredom or turned into some endless mud wrestling contest with the smack talk on the forums getting dirtier and dirtier? Personally I can only remember one (ages ago), and even in that one the losing side still occasionally claims not to have lost. As far as I can tell alliance wars go on indefinitely because the only way to win a war is to cause so much harm that the losers actually begin to quit the game altogether. Usually alliances are big enough that a solid cadre remains at the centre and the periphery members 'churn' - that is the poorer corps end up leaving the alliance (if they're lucky and move out while they're ahead) or quitting EVE (if they hang on to the bitter end when all their resources are consumed). This leaves things in a state of perpetual warfare, after a month or two the original cause of the war is forgotten and people spend half their time podding each other because they always have and spend the other half flaming each other on the forums over who's kill list is most valid. I believe this is caused by there being no ingame method of actually confirming that a war has been won when the other side won't accept it. You can't seal an area of space off completely (due to instajumps), you can't clear space effectively (due to safe spots), you can't kick a group of people out of offices, etc, etc. I think there should be an ingame way of mutually 'bidding' on war aims which when achieved are actually marked up as a victory for one side and a defeat for the other, possibly with an exchange of assets handled by the game. Shiva will be bringing in some nice changes to the whole alliance/war thing but I really think it's missing a fundamental problem with the current system which pretty much guarantees an eventual slide into a 'dirty' war. What do other people think? _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:39:00 - [3] People think you're right [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:39:00 - [4] People think you're right [Heterocephalus glaber]
Bohr	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:42:00 - [5] Originally by: Discorporation People think you're right No
Bohr	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:42:00 - [6] Originally by: Discorporation People think you're right No
Lama Zpiff	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:47:00 - [7] You're right on all aspects i reckon... but please don't make any peace now, will ya? I just joined PA for my fair share of the action :) Hopefully stuff will change with the POS in shiva. But it would be nice if a side controlling a station would also control a few stargates/sentry guns... That way you could force the enemy to take certain routes and maybe you'd end up with more "pure battles". Though that's just my two isk. You Call.. Gonna be all over, baby.
Lama Zpiff	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:47:00 - [8] You're right on all aspects i reckon... but please don't make any peace now, will ya? I just joined PA for my fair share of the action :) Hopefully stuff will change with the POS in shiva. But it would be nice if a side controlling a station would also control a few stargates/sentry guns... That way you could force the enemy to take certain routes and maybe you'd end up with more "pure battles". Though that's just my two isk. You Call.. Gonna be all over, baby.
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:48:00 - [9] Originally by: Bohr No You're clearly not people, then! [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.09.15 14:48:00 - [10] Originally by: Bohr No You're clearly not people, then! [Heterocephalus glaber]
Severe McCald	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:06:00 - [11] You are right. I am hoping that Shiva will give a greater ability to control territory properly; although it isn't looking too good atm. Once you control all the POS in a system you should also be able to put sentries on the gate and around your stations etc. Maybe also buy NPC police ships to patrol. Not so that you are invunerable, but just bloody difficult and expensive to dislodge. This would be my definition of having won a system. Then you move to the next... If this was possible, an alliance might actually begin to win the game, but this need not worry CCP who could tip the scales against anyone who became too powerful (or, in such an unlikely event as a dominant alliance sweeping the Eve universe, declare them the winners and have the Jove declare war on them - end of alliance). As I say, not looking too good for Shiva, but we might yet get there. Severe And Moses was content to dwell with the man:and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom:for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
Severe McCald	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:06:00 - [12] You are right. I am hoping that Shiva will give a greater ability to control territory properly; although it isn't looking too good atm. Once you control all the POS in a system you should also be able to put sentries on the gate and around your stations etc. Maybe also buy NPC police ships to patrol. Not so that you are invunerable, but just bloody difficult and expensive to dislodge. This would be my definition of having won a system. Then you move to the next... If this was possible, an alliance might actually begin to win the game, but this need not worry CCP who could tip the scales against anyone who became too powerful (or, in such an unlikely event as a dominant alliance sweeping the Eve universe, declare them the winners and have the Jove declare war on them - end of alliance). As I say, not looking too good for Shiva, but we might yet get there. Severe And Moses was content to dwell with the man:and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom:for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.
DB Preacher	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:13:00 - [13] Personally, I'm secretly hoping SHIVA will give each alliance to have their own funky colour (randomly generated by CCP of course ... just hope I don't end up in Pink or Brown Alliance). Then for each POS put up on the map for that alliance it creates a colour on the map in that system. For each system next to each other with POS in them they get joined up. Eventually the big Alliances will have a coloured map of their own. At least this way we will see who exactly owns land and who just sits logged off or docked in stations. dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
DB Preacher	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:13:00 - [14] Personally, I'm secretly hoping SHIVA will give each alliance to have their own funky colour (randomly generated by CCP of course ... just hope I don't end up in Pink or Brown Alliance). Then for each POS put up on the map for that alliance it creates a colour on the map in that system. For each system next to each other with POS in them they get joined up. Eventually the big Alliances will have a coloured map of their own. At least this way we will see who exactly owns land and who just sits logged off or docked in stations. dbp Current RKK Ranking: (CAL4) Soldier Drop by and say hi in Reikoku Forums.
Kaleigh Doyle	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:19:00 - [15] I think they leave that open-ended so the players can decide their own goals and desires. Perhaps there is perpetual war because most corps have no long term goals other than ships/kills, and ego reigns supreme. Can two parties at war not agree to terms on their own, and then stick to it? Good luck... Glamour Bunnies Entertainment Corporation
Kaleigh Doyle	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:19:00 - [16] I think they leave that open-ended so the players can decide their own goals and desires. Perhaps there is perpetual war because most corps have no long term goals other than ships/kills, and ego reigns supreme. Can two parties at war not agree to terms on their own, and then stick to it? Good luck... Glamour Bunnies Entertainment Corporation
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Severe McCald Once you control all the POS in a system you should also be able to put sentries on the gate and around your stations etc. Maybe also buy NPC police ships to patrol. Not so that you are invunerable, but just bloody difficult and expensive to dislodge. I agree completely - so long as it is as you describe and system by system. At the moment I feel part of the problem of 'winning' is that alliances claim entire (or more usually multiple) systems. The way it is now there two problems though, firstly the ones I've already mentioned of cleaning out regions and secondly the entire galaxy is gobbled up by long term players. Whilst I think that 'older' players should (and will) have an advantage over newer ones I see no reason why people venturing out into 0.0 to make a new home should pretty much be assimilated into existing alliances. Here's a possible idea - Alliance and Corporation Kudos Points. Make it so that all alliances/corps start off with, say, 1000/100 kudos points. By defeating other alliances and corporations they gain a proportion of their enemies Kudos points. A defeat is defined by achieving a set number of war conditions. eg the initiating alliance/corp says that "I will defeat 3 times the number of battleships you do with a minimum of 5 kills within 1 month and evict you from station X, for this I bid 100M ISK". The 100M would be set automatically by the EVE system based on how much they say they will do. The other corp then looks at the other corps victory conditions and says, bah! they haven't got a chance and can bid up an increment to say 200M. This continues until one side stops bidding. Both sides must then get 1/2 the final bid taken off them and put into a 'war chest'. At that point the war starts and continues until the victory conditions are met (attacker wins) or the time runs out (defender wins). The winning side gets the Kudos points and the total price of the 'war chest'. The Kudos points are then used to get 'stuff' from empires and pirate alliances and would also give better refining yields, agent missions and lower rentals and prices. Before people think that this would be too biased towards Alliances I would also allow corps to 'align' themselves with one of the main Empires plus maybe an extra 'Freelancer'. This would not replace the existing war system, so people would still have war restrictions, the main purpose would be to give an objective way of 'winning'. By the way - there's no chance that JF will be surrendering in the near future dream on if you think we are. I didn't mention names for a reason. I think it's a fairly common problem across EVE both in corp wars and (almost universally) in Alliance wars, and I'd rather hope we can discuss things without moving down the 'hot' path. _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:42:00 - [18] Originally by: Severe McCald Once you control all the POS in a system you should also be able to put sentries on the gate and around your stations etc. Maybe also buy NPC police ships to patrol. Not so that you are invunerable, but just bloody difficult and expensive to dislodge. I agree completely - so long as it is as you describe and system by system. At the moment I feel part of the problem of 'winning' is that alliances claim entire (or more usually multiple) systems. The way it is now there two problems though, firstly the ones I've already mentioned of cleaning out regions and secondly the entire galaxy is gobbled up by long term players. Whilst I think that 'older' players should (and will) have an advantage over newer ones I see no reason why people venturing out into 0.0 to make a new home should pretty much be assimilated into existing alliances. Here's a possible idea - Alliance and Corporation Kudos Points. Make it so that all alliances/corps start off with, say, 1000/100 kudos points. By defeating other alliances and corporations they gain a proportion of their enemies Kudos points. A defeat is defined by achieving a set number of war conditions. eg the initiating alliance/corp says that "I will defeat 3 times the number of battleships you do with a minimum of 5 kills within 1 month and evict you from station X, for this I bid 100M ISK". The 100M would be set automatically by the EVE system based on how much they say they will do. The other corp then looks at the other corps victory conditions and says, bah! they haven't got a chance and can bid up an increment to say 200M. This continues until one side stops bidding. Both sides must then get 1/2 the final bid taken off them and put into a 'war chest'. At that point the war starts and continues until the victory conditions are met (attacker wins) or the time runs out (defender wins). The winning side gets the Kudos points and the total price of the 'war chest'. The Kudos points are then used to get 'stuff' from empires and pirate alliances and would also give better refining yields, agent missions and lower rentals and prices. Before people think that this would be too biased towards Alliances I would also allow corps to 'align' themselves with one of the main Empires plus maybe an extra 'Freelancer'. This would not replace the existing war system, so people would still have war restrictions, the main purpose would be to give an objective way of 'winning'. By the way - there's no chance that JF will be surrendering in the near future dream on if you think we are. I didn't mention names for a reason. I think it's a fairly common problem across EVE both in corp wars and (almost universally) in Alliance wars, and I'd rather hope we can discuss things without moving down the 'hot' path. _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:47:00 - [19] Originally by: Kaleigh Doyle Can two parties at war not agree to terms on their own, and then stick to it? Clearly not I've known a lot of people that have quit (the entire game) due to endless wars they wouldn't let go of before it was too late, some allies some enemies. Crushing victory right now means forcing a group of players to quit (which is almost impossible to do against an alliance once the numbers get too high) - surely that's not a good thing? I'd like people to be able to win on a strategic level without the explicit permission of the loser who can be pounded into oblivion and kicked around and still say they're winning! (and please don't read too much into that, I'm still talking generally) _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Athule Snanm	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Kaleigh Doyle Can two parties at war not agree to terms on their own, and then stick to it? Clearly not I've known a lot of people that have quit (the entire game) due to endless wars they wouldn't let go of before it was too late, some allies some enemies. Crushing victory right now means forcing a group of players to quit (which is almost impossible to do against an alliance once the numbers get too high) - surely that's not a good thing? I'd like people to be able to win on a strategic level without the explicit permission of the loser who can be pounded into oblivion and kicked around and still say they're winning! (and please don't read too much into that, I'm still talking generally) _______________________________ Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene!
Miso	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:48:00 - [21] Athule, I posted on this a month or so ago too. I agree, wars need an endgame. I can't be bothered to find the thread but it the sentiments were the same. Here's hoping something is done about it. -------------------------------------------- Dead
Miso	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:48:00 - [22] Athule, I posted on this a month or so ago too. I agree, wars need an endgame. I can't be bothered to find the thread but it the sentiments were the same. Here's hoping something is done about it. -------------------------------------------- Dead
Selim	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:50:00 - [23] The reason that wars last forever is because we have a 1984 type situation. Corporations cannot be defeated, corp members are always extremely loyal, and there are limitless resources to build forces from, encouraging endless strife. The latter is also the reason why there are so many battleships.
Selim	Posted - 2004.09.15 15:50:00 - [24] The reason that wars last forever is because we have a 1984 type situation. Corporations cannot be defeated, corp members are always extremely loyal, and there are limitless resources to build forces from, encouraging endless strife. The latter is also the reason why there are so many battleships.
Thesalaus	Posted - 2004.09.15 16:12:00 - [25] Edited by: Thesalaus on 15/09/2004 16:18:02 Athule I totally agree with you man. Not long ago I posted a possible fix to this very problem in the idea lab. One that I think isn't all that complicate. Idea for real Territory Gain This idea would allow alliances/groups/coalitions to restrict access to their claimed space while at the same time allow 80-90% of eve's population to continue to ninja mine, gate run, or spy as they normally do. Also attackers would be able to actually remove defenders from areas of space, while allowing defenders to prohibit attackers from entering space with anything short of a full invasion fleet. I would love CCP to implement that system or something similar. Would be the final piece missing from this great game. And wars would come to an end one way or another with a clear victor. Oberon Inc Website Oberon Sales Page Pain
Thesalaus	Posted - 2004.09.15 16:12:00 - [26] Edited by: Thesalaus on 15/09/2004 16:18:02 Athule I totally agree with you man. Not long ago I posted a possible fix to this very problem in the idea lab. One that I think isn't all that complicate. Idea for real Territory Gain This idea would allow alliances/groups/coalitions to restrict access to their claimed space while at the same time allow 80-90% of eve's population to continue to ninja mine, gate run, or spy as they normally do. Also attackers would be able to actually remove defenders from areas of space, while allowing defenders to prohibit attackers from entering space with anything short of a full invasion fleet. I would love CCP to implement that system or something similar. Would be the final piece missing from this great game. And wars would come to an end one way or another with a clear victor. Oberon Inc Website Oberon Sales Page Pain
Siddy	Posted - 2004.09.15 16:59:00 - [27] amen - i hope Shiva brings some relief to this situation ... then its time to b00t CA from curse (j/k) -------------------------------------------
Siddy	Posted - 2004.09.15 16:59:00 - [28] amen - i hope Shiva brings some relief to this situation ... then its time to b00t CA from curse (j/k) -------------------------------------------
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2004.09.15 18:45:00 - [29] Wars end when one side gives up the theatre and moves away permanently. Make ships remain in space after logging off in space and you'll have some territorial control. Especially after Shiva brings anchorable ship hangars. You want to control space: you need to bring your own hangars or risk someone finding your ship and destroying it. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2004.09.15 18:45:00 - [30] Wars end when one side gives up the theatre and moves away permanently. Make ships remain in space after logging off in space and you'll have some territorial control. Especially after Shiva brings anchorable ship hangars. You want to control space: you need to bring your own hangars or risk someone finding your ship and destroying it. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.