Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Minigin
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 06:59:00 -
[1]
ISSUES: 1: relatively few 0.0 systems are inahabited or used to their full potential 2: server stability fluctuates with increasing numbers in "giant" wars (when 7-8 regions worth of players are crammed into one system) 3: stagnancy of 0.0 warefare - long siege times / low chance of engagements that are playable 4. evasion of consequences
SOLUTION: hate to be blunt yall... but complete removal of standings system would solve nearly every major 0.0 issue we are having with this game...
HOW WOULD IT SOLVE THESE ISSUES: 1. almost complete shattering of coalition system (likely that nips could still be used) - this would severely draw back the ability of 0.0 alliances to hold LOTS of space - obviously this would lead to more alliances being able to get a foothold in 0.0 and hopefully more people coming out into 0.0 2. far less likely to encounter server issues on a regular basis(being people from over half of eve converging on the one system to sit there lagged out for hours) 3. weaker alliances may leed to more powershifting and a more dynamic 0.0 map, which again would allow more people to see more of eve - will also leed to more instances of battles for both small roaming gangs and large fleet fights looking to invade etc. 4. use of alts to evade consequences/derive benefits would be stopped by such a thing obviously. bringing importance to choice of alliance / corp.
PROBLEMS: no one from a coalition that is benefiting from these standings is going to come along willingly. but i know finnagain would want me to tell you all to man up and adapt or die...(its a difficult task to convinse people that they would be better off in such an eve - particularly as they have experianced little but this sort of game.)
random thoughts: uncertain why standings should have been included in the game to begin with, as both coalitions and alliances enable you to derive benefits. allowing standings is simply a way to circumvent any consequences of having to be in the same alliance. my thoughts are if people want to work together, they have to be capable of holding it together.
further, at current being blue to another entity is essentially meaningless, it has nothing to do with friendship/liking we have seen leaders of alliances blue alliances whom they have aledgedly hated for mutal protection.
interestingly enough i dont believe that a removal of standings would at all cheapen the politics of eve, it might in fact enhance it. instead of meaningless conversations essentially of "are you scared of being invaded?" "yes, are you?" "yes... lets be friends..." it might turn into something far more complex and delicate. something like nips or mutual invasion pacts, ie "if im invaded you invade my invader" etc. such a change could liven up areas of this game which have been relatively dormant.
unforseen issues: if something like this is done, we could be surprised by the desperation of certain entites, and perhaps there could be similar issues if super alliances are formed, however it is my belief that it is far more difficult to maintain a 10k man alliance than 10 individual 1k man alliances. so perhaps it wouldnt be an issue but if we end up with two alliances holding the entire of 0.0 again... then i guess looking into other limitation options is also wise.
. color poastar.
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D
Plague Black > I will keep pummeling your redneck posts with my literacy |
Naomi Wildfire
Amarr Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 07:09:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Naomi Wildfire on 07/11/2010 07:13:55 Let me be first to say no, will edit later :P
So what happens when standings would be removed? The allies are gonna fill up with members till they have a Super Ally which could do the same like the actual coalitions, maybe a little smaller but you could still do the same.
How would you defend against such a super Ally? Cry till CCP cuts down the maximum of members an ally can hold?
|
Minigin
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 07:35:00 -
[3]
well two things,
firstly, i think its much harder to try and get everyone to fold into one giant coalition because of things like pride, arrogance, mistrust etc etc, also i think once such a large "formal" alliance is made there would be significant internal struggles simply with the size. having too much isnt always good for you.
aside from this i think if your only real argument is that, i cant see how it will be any worse than what the game is like now... so why isnt it worth the try?
also supportin mah own thread, dont get me wrong i doubt this change will ever be made, but i can hope. and i dont want to give up faith in ccp just yet! . color poastar.
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D
Plague Black > I will keep pummeling your redneck posts with my literacy |
Shiroi Okami
Mad Bombers HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 07:37:00 -
[4]
Supported
Nerf the NC I mean coalitions
|
Arkanor
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 07:41:00 -
[5]
Because it's completely impossible to meta this whole thing... or form a super-alliance.
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 08:01:00 -
[6]
How about no.. standings are used for a lot more than just 0.0 mega alliance formation.. even small corps and individuals use them for various things.
|
Lady Parity
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 08:03:00 -
[7]
Excellent idea but if this is introduced you will definitely need an alliance player cap because NC NAP Abusers will most likely put ALL their previous NAPs in their alliance.
However this idea is brilliant it will finally allow skill to hold space rather than blobbing, it will also mean lag will only have to be fixed to counter at best a 12k battle (assuming 2 alliances capped go at it with EVERY MEMBER ONLINE).
It involves nice risk / reward but I think NRDS alliances wont be too happy with the change.
0.0 will become populated, with alliances craving blood no longer will NAPs prevent the outcome of a battle, alliances will have to decide which 'friend' is worth having and which 'isnt'.
Smaller alliances will now have a chance in 0.0
Outcome eitherway will be MORE PvP, MORE activity and most of all MORE LAGG FREE BATTLES!!
Mini, you should apply to CSM your ideas actually will help eve unlike certain NAP abusing hypocrites
|
Tertiacero
Total Mayhem. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 08:22:00 -
[8]
I think that removing standings from the game is probably the wrong way to go if you want a dynamic environment where borders change on a regular basis. Unfortunately you're right in the respect that if standings are removed then most of the coalitions will just merge into even larger, more static, alliances and no real changes will occur except the further damaging of smaller alliances which are already pretty much relegated to becoming renters, pets or guerrilla alliances if they want to inhabit 0.0 with no real options for taking space on their own.
Instead I'd like to see standings severely nerfed. Introduce real penalties and benefits for setting other entities blue or red (not a hard cap either because that has literally never ended well) and get rid of this stupid sov infrastructure system and static anoms.
Most of all for the love of god stop treating each system as an isolated unit of sov and instead start treating sov over all owned systems as a single entity being generated from a central HQ system and systems that are being used for carebearing.
The best way to nerf these supercoalitions is to reintroduce resource scarcity and give supercoalitions reasons to fight internally. Then make legitimate ways for smaller pvp oriented alliances to have some sort of real effect against spaceholding alliances and their sov. |
SephiXan
Amarr Kiroshi Group Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 09:02:00 -
[9]
You will never be rid of supergroups, one way or another they will show up. It is human nature. This thread just looks like an attempt to get people to change mechanics because you cannot deal with it.
Removing standing is a good idea, but it will create mega alliances, fragile ones, but they will happen, and continue to do so as you guys keep forgetting about the industrial side of this game. Who is gonna protect the people making you ships?
Currently the market is well fed from having safe supply routes throughout space. The market would take a large hit if these lines suddenly died, causing you all to lose wealth fast as your want for more pvp empties your wallets from ship prices suddenly spiking and more losses than you are adjusted to.
I will agree it is nice thought to be able to have more groups, be able to fight smaller battles. One I can atest to as yea, I'm with the NC and no those lag battles are not fun.
But this all looks like a way to get the game mechanics changed because you're losing, so find another way.
Politics aside, I however do like the idea of a consequence system on standings.
-SephiXan
EOH Cashout Banker EOH Hiring Manager EVE Online Hold'Em |
Minigin
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 09:15:00 -
[10]
yeh red vs blue is very interested in taking your space, look out everyone!
the reason people always assume i cant hack losing is because they assume (and poorly so) that they are winning.
wake up to yourselves.
speeking of being unable to deal with it: SephiXan > you're right, standings wouldn't be pulled out, and if they were, and when my predictions come true, i'll just quit the game because the one thing i love about it is gone . color poastar.
Revisal > Nice job trying to troll me but luckily I'm smarter than you. :D
Plague Black > I will keep pummeling your redneck posts with my literacy |
|
Lady Parity
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 09:21:00 -
[11]
I wish people wouldnt keep saying human nature, first of all 'human nature' alone covers several theories all which down the line go against each other and is broken down in alot of areas from psychology to philosophy which in the end are all theories.
While I am fond of psychology and understand the importance of analysing and understanding stuff, I wouldnt and neither would ANY person simply reply "because of human nature", you may as well reply "people blob because".
Blobbing through survivability can be down to a **** load of stuff, dependency and ego come to mind
Node crashing via blobbing can be down to alot of things like opportunity and dependency.
Seriously which ever dumbass made it openly acceptable to allow people to say "because of human nature" really needs to go study psychology.
Because guess what XXX does YYY because of Human Nature can apply to EVERYTHING thanks to how vague the statement is, at least back it up oh and for the record, survivability plays a part in nature but even so if your logic is going to promote blobbing because it is natural then minigins idea should go ahead because it is natural
This is what happens when people get their education from TV <sigh>
|
Flesh Slurper
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 10:30:00 -
[12]
The point is.. regardless of if you remove the feature to have colors to show who you like, and who you don't. People will still have friends and enemies, so nothing will change. They will simply work around the inconvenience.
No-one would have a blue today, and then when standings are removed, suddenly go "oh well.. since the game doesn't let me put a blue + next to your name now you are my enemy" lol.
Instead they would say "Ok since we are friends and CCP were idiots to remove a useful feature of the game, how can we organize ourselves so we don't have friendly fire".
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 11:28:00 -
[13]
Never before seen such an effective method of removing the chance for small groups to ever be active in 0.0.
Blob warfare should be prevented by game mechanics, not by stupid limitations and making the UI worse. Make travel slower -> less blob warfare.
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 13:14:00 -
[14]
Well Minigin, I think the issue list you compiled is valid, but I'm in agreement with Furb:
Originally by: Furb Killer Blob warfare should be prevented by game mechanics, not by stupid limitations and making the UI worse. Make travel slower -> less blob warfare.
________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Shiroi Okami
Gallente Mad Bombers HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 14:59:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Aineko Macx Well Minigin, I think the issue list you compiled is valid, but I'm in agreement with Furb:
Originally by: Furb Killer Blob warfare should be prevented by game mechanics, not by stupid limitations and making the UI worse. Make travel slower -> less blob warfare.
Making conventional travel slower is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Nerfing jump bridges however, is a very GOOD idea
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 16:05:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Shiroi Okami
Originally by: Aineko Macx Well Minigin, I think the issue list you compiled is valid, but I'm in agreement with Furb:
Originally by: Furb Killer Blob warfare should be prevented by game mechanics, not by stupid limitations and making the UI worse. Make travel slower -> less blob warfare.
Making conventional travel slower is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea. Nerfing jump bridges however, is a very GOOD idea
I believe that's what he meant. ________________________ CCP: Where fixing bugs is a luxury, not an obligation. |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 17:24:00 -
[17]
Pretty much everything with jump in the name: Jump bridges, jump drives, jump clones, etc (no not jump gates). Normal travel definately does not need to be slower.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 17:40:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/11/2010 17:46:11 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 07/11/2010 17:43:28 Your proposal is utterly stupid and full of fail.
Just because you feel removal of a game mechanic will fix things doesn't mean it will.
We have these things called internets.... and social networking.
What in the frakking hell prevents us from coming up with our own standings system?
Seriously... I suggest you take a step back from the gaming world and get a taste of reality again before you start banging your "anti-coalition" drum.
If you want more targets... then don't blue anyone and red everyone... you have plenty of targets to shoot at that point.
No one said you had to use it.
PS: Besides...everyone knows that these newfangled coalitions don't really work as well as they do... its a political game with promises and eventually turn out to be false anyway. Just take a gander at the COAD... oh wait... your from there.... never mind.
It's really just blob insurance... but in reality its just mutually assured destruction... pay me rent and I back you up... and in reality they are just in it for their own agenda. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Lady Parity
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 18:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Drake Draconis fix the lag... so blob warfare becomes epic and smooth connection wise... if anything you get a nice movie.
CCP made a huge improvement on lag and what was the first thing you saw, NC bring in more people to bring back lag, this has been the same thing thatĘs happened over the past several years and will continue to
Players blob and create lag Players whine CCP fixes lag
See what the problem here is, CCP could change it so 500k people are allowed in one system lag free but eventually the same problem will happen.
So imagine this scenario
600k NC vs 100k while all smaller alliances have max maybe 10k members.
See what the real problem is? Because unless the mechanics are changed, smaller alliances wont stand a chance in 0.0 and the only strategy will be to blob, mass NAPing and blobbing only encourages other alliances todo the same killing small gang warfare
Cant wait to see 550k titans on a killmail
|
SXYGeeK
Gallente do you -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 18:54:00 -
[20]
Edited by: SXYGeeK on 07/11/2010 18:57:04
Originally by: Minigin ISSUES: so perhaps it wouldnt be an issue but if we end up with two alliances holding the entire of 0.0 again... then i guess looking into other limitation options is also wise.
I Like what you are trying to do Mini, but I have to disagree on the effectiveness of the method. and that last line is partly why. People are going to find a way to adapt to the restrictions. the baseline mechanics of combat and Sov present no benefit to split forces or fight in smaller force. the problem of blobs needs to be addressed there first. trying to place artificial limits on the size of gangs that an entity can field will not hold. people will find a way adapt because there is a incentive to do so.
Here is an idea I had brought up for discussion before, but cannot find the thread. If we want to reduce the blob we need two things. reduce the effectiveness of blob to provide incentive for splitting the force. give smaller forces a meaningful objective in Sov.
In your other thread on bridges we talked a little about changing Sov mechanics to give small gang objectives so I'll leave that over there.
but we also need to reduce the effectiveness of the blog force to provide an incentive for splitting the force, otherwise they will just blob one objective after the other. attacking them separately with smaller forces has to in some way be more effective.
Eve is a game of diminishing returns, yet the power of a large fleet to direct their fire on a single target in undiminished over numbers (at least until the server starts to lag). If there where some limitation of the effectiveness of a larger gang to all target individual members of a smaller gang we could see much more fluid and dynamic fleet fights. Imagine that if only so many ships could affectively lock a vessel ( a function of signature radius vs scan resolution ) we would have a situation where ships where encouraged to primary their most effective target class and not all lump damage onto one primary as a fleet.
-We So SeXy |
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 19:08:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Lykouleon on 07/11/2010 19:09:52 Real men don't need blues...
Quote: Lord Makk > Our pilots are masochist buttjockey
|
VCBee 2fast2furious
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 19:40:00 -
[22]
co-operation isnt fair aboo hoo hoo hoo
|
|
CCP Adida
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 21:01:00 -
[23]
Removed a trolling comment
Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.11.07 23:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: CCP Adida Removed a trolling comment
You forgot the OP.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |