| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Danton Marcellus
   |
Posted - 2004.09.15 19:26:00 -
[31]
Sign on for a certain type of war where the tolerable losses are mentioned in the agreement, first corporation to hit that mark loses the war, made to surrender and need to pay yet another predetermined sum to the winner.
Convert Stations
|
Danton Marcellus
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 19:26:00 -
[32]
Sign on for a certain type of war where the tolerable losses are mentioned in the agreement, first corporation to hit that mark loses the war, made to surrender and need to pay yet another predetermined sum to the winner.
Convert Stations
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 19:33:00 -
[33]
Tie it (and, I've suggested, Mercenary corp contracts) into the formal contracts system..
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 19:33:00 -
[34]
Tie it (and, I've suggested, Mercenary corp contracts) into the formal contracts system..
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Naos Zapatero
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 21:11:00 -
[35]
Until there is something worth fighting for and defend its just Attrition warefare imo.
Taxation on wars and an ever increasing gradient over time to the tax would also help, let the winner get the pot when the other Corp can no longer pay war duties.
(just an idea)
|
Naos Zapatero
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 21:11:00 -
[36]
Until there is something worth fighting for and defend its just Attrition warefare imo.
Taxation on wars and an ever increasing gradient over time to the tax would also help, let the winner get the pot when the other Corp can no longer pay war duties.
(just an idea)
|
Malv
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 07:19:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Malv on 16/09/2004 07:27:06
Edited by: Malv on 16/09/2004 07:22:55
Wars are generally fought over geographic regions rich in certain resources. Eve doesn't really have a good system in place to control certain territories. People can still enter, mine to their hearts content, and leave with very little bother. I've figured a way around this fortunately. Declare war on corps that are saturating your markets with goods and get them to leave. You control the market, you control the region. That's about the only REAL reason for there to be a war.
Mining group undercutting the price of minerals: declare war and make them leave. It's far to risky to mine in an area where your enemy has declared war on you. If you control the minerals, you control just about everything. If there are small miners, buy them out (odds are they wont meet demand anyways).
I have basically discovered that trying to control zydrine is a bit too difficult. However, making it expensive for your enemy to acquire it isn't.
To recap: you don't need to conquer territory to beat you opponents. Just control the markets and make producing difficult for them. Hunt down the miners and buy out smaller opposition. Nobody is going to sit around and let you destroy their entire fleet. They will get up and leave. It takes quite a bit of minerals to produce a BS, and if they can't go out and mine without losing a cruiser every time, odds are they will just discover the futility in trying and leave. Perhaps in a week or so they will return and challenge the throne.
|
Malv
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 07:19:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Malv on 16/09/2004 07:27:06
Edited by: Malv on 16/09/2004 07:22:55
Wars are generally fought over geographic regions rich in certain resources. Eve doesn't really have a good system in place to control certain territories. People can still enter, mine to their hearts content, and leave with very little bother. I've figured a way around this fortunately. Declare war on corps that are saturating your markets with goods and get them to leave. You control the market, you control the region. That's about the only REAL reason for there to be a war.
Mining group undercutting the price of minerals: declare war and make them leave. It's far to risky to mine in an area where your enemy has declared war on you. If you control the minerals, you control just about everything. If there are small miners, buy them out (odds are they wont meet demand anyways).
I have basically discovered that trying to control zydrine is a bit too difficult. However, making it expensive for your enemy to acquire it isn't.
To recap: you don't need to conquer territory to beat you opponents. Just control the markets and make producing difficult for them. Hunt down the miners and buy out smaller opposition. Nobody is going to sit around and let you destroy their entire fleet. They will get up and leave. It takes quite a bit of minerals to produce a BS, and if they can't go out and mine without losing a cruiser every time, odds are they will just discover the futility in trying and leave. Perhaps in a week or so they will return and challenge the throne.
|
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 09:47:00 -
[39]
Not my first mention of the subject either, but seeing as shiva will bring more reasons to start a war and also at the same time the tools seem to be getting added to make wars a bit more organised I thought I'd bring the subject up again.
As to making it a straight money thing with the loser being dictated by whoever runs out first, well I'm sure there's plenty of individuals out there that could bring many a corp to its knees whilst being completely AFK. Not good I think 
Kicking someone out of a market works against small and inflexible corps, but once enough people (especially if they're spread across different corps) get involved it's pretty near impossible. This is why alliances seem to go on forever no matter how badly they're doing, and are also never terribly secure no matter how well they're doing. The evidence for this is everywhere in EVE when you look at the really big wars.
One thing I do hope though is that Alliances/corps will be prevented almost completely from taking over a region unless they're totally committed to doing so, find it hard (but very possible) to control an entire constellation and reasonably easy to control a single system.
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 09:47:00 -
[40]
Not my first mention of the subject either, but seeing as shiva will bring more reasons to start a war and also at the same time the tools seem to be getting added to make wars a bit more organised I thought I'd bring the subject up again.
As to making it a straight money thing with the loser being dictated by whoever runs out first, well I'm sure there's plenty of individuals out there that could bring many a corp to its knees whilst being completely AFK. Not good I think
Kicking someone out of a market works against small and inflexible corps, but once enough people (especially if they're spread across different corps) get involved it's pretty near impossible. This is why alliances seem to go on forever no matter how badly they're doing, and are also never terribly secure no matter how well they're doing. The evidence for this is everywhere in EVE when you look at the really big wars.
One thing I do hope though is that Alliances/corps will be prevented almost completely from taking over a region unless they're totally committed to doing so, find it hard (but very possible) to control an entire constellation and reasonably easy to control a single system.
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Thanit
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 09:58:00 -
[41]
Hmm, i would regret systems that formalise war ending conditions like suggested here.
All wars are wars of attrition. Just that you take someone's territory doesnt mean the war is over in eve, they recoup and come back at you.
The problem imo is that attrition is taking somewhat long atm. There should not be two-week wars that actually decide a corps or alliance's fate in Eve. But currently 6 months is a more accurate estimate of the time it takes to really take over another alliance. And that's 6 months of continually keeping the pressure up on all fronts, in all areas.
I think it's the right way, but should be made somewhat shorter thru increasing the losses one can inflict.
thus: ships should remain in sapce after logging, pos should be destructable.
|
Thanit
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 09:58:00 -
[42]
Hmm, i would regret systems that formalise war ending conditions like suggested here.
All wars are wars of attrition. Just that you take someone's territory doesnt mean the war is over in eve, they recoup and come back at you.
The problem imo is that attrition is taking somewhat long atm. There should not be two-week wars that actually decide a corps or alliance's fate in Eve. But currently 6 months is a more accurate estimate of the time it takes to really take over another alliance. And that's 6 months of continually keeping the pressure up on all fronts, in all areas.
I think it's the right way, but should be made somewhat shorter thru increasing the losses one can inflict.
thus: ships should remain in sapce after logging, pos should be destructable.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:00:00 -
[43]
 Originally by: Rod Blaine
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.
what he said ... most sensible post ever
ships should NEVER disappear from the game. You should only be safe when DOCKED.
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:00:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Rod Blaine
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.
what he said ... most sensible post ever
ships should NEVER disappear from the game. You should only be safe when DOCKED.
~~~~)\~~~~~\o/~~~~
yeah but no but yeah but no but |
Oveur
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:15:00 -
[45]
Without divulging anything immense, this thread is very close to the hidden agenda of post-Shiva EVE. Which incidentally will be revealed at the EVE Fanfest ;)
_____________________________
I say hey sky, s'other say I won say, I pray to J I get the same ol' same ol. |
Oveur
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:15:00 -
[46]
Without divulging anything immense, this thread is very close to the hidden agenda of post-Shiva EVE. Which incidentally will be revealed at the EVE Fanfest ;)
_____________________________
I say hey sky, s'other say I won say, I pray to J I get the same ol' same ol. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:16:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Oveur
Without divulging anything immense, this thread is very close to the hidden agenda of post-Shiva EVE. Which incidentally will be revealed at the EVE Fanfest ;)
As long as it dont involve agents it'll undoubtedly be great then.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:16:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Oveur
Without divulging anything immense, this thread is very close to the hidden agenda of post-Shiva EVE. Which incidentally will be revealed at the EVE Fanfest ;)
As long as it dont involve agents it'll undoubtedly be great then.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:50:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Thanit
All wars are wars of attrition...
Problem is that the attrition is as much of players as it is of equipment and resources once a war has gone past its sell by date. I don't think big alliance wars take 6 months - in fact I think it would be hard to find any that have really and truly ended (I can think of only one, or maybe two, and that was more of a corp vs everyone else war) and not just been a minor change of leadership or alliance name. Personally I think a 1-6 month war would be fine - if there ever was actually a real end in sight. I agree that a two week war would be too short.
Interestingly almost all the smack topics about 'I killed a X battleship yesterday', 'no you didn't I wasn't even in that region', 'oh yes I did', 'oh no you didn't', etc have gone since the kill mails appeared. A formal war ending could at least do something to end the countless 'Is X dead yet?' posts - I doubt it would get rid of them completely, but it would be a good start.
Something that scares me is that one other possible solution would be consensual wars - hopefully that will never happen, and a *good* war conclusion system would hopefully ensure it would never happen.
Good to see a post from you, Oveur, on the topic - there's lots of really nice stuff coming in Shiva, a proper way of 'winning' would be the icing on the cake and well worth waiting for!
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
Athule Snanm
|
Posted - 2004.09.16 10:50:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Thanit
All wars are wars of attrition...
Problem is that the attrition is as much of players as it is of equipment and resources once a war has gone past its sell by date. I don't think big alliance wars take 6 months - in fact I think it would be hard to find any that have really and truly ended (I can think of only one, or maybe two, and that was more of a corp vs everyone else war) and not just been a minor change of leadership or alliance name. Personally I think a 1-6 month war would be fine - if there ever was actually a real end in sight. I agree that a two week war would be too short.
Interestingly almost all the smack topics about 'I killed a X battleship yesterday', 'no you didn't I wasn't even in that region', 'oh yes I did', 'oh no you didn't', etc have gone since the kill mails appeared. A formal war ending could at least do something to end the countless 'Is X dead yet?' posts - I doubt it would get rid of them completely, but it would be a good start.
Something that scares me is that one other possible solution would be consensual wars - hopefully that will never happen, and a *good* war conclusion system would hopefully ensure it would never happen.
Good to see a post from you, Oveur, on the topic - there's lots of really nice stuff coming in Shiva, a proper way of 'winning' would be the icing on the cake and well worth waiting for!
_______________________________
Doomheim - EVE's only hygiene! |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |