Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aedron
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:30:00 -
[1]
Greetings,
With the extent of lag issues and posts being implemented. Its clear that although CCP attempt to fix the lag issues within the game the problem isn't solely their fault more so than the super block alliances of today's EvE 0.0 environment.
The Topic
Ways in which we as a community can impact lag, what needs to change in the EvE Universe and what we can all do to help the game. As a great man once said "ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Getting the ball rolling. The issues:
0.0 super blocks now have ridiculous amounts of pilots at their disposal, it dosnt matter if CCP makes the game workable with 3000 in system because they will then bring 4000. What if an "EvE Rules of engagement" where written up which stated maximum fleet numbers in an engagement either a fixed number or a number set by both parties?
What if alliances as a whole cut their own numbers down, everyone in eve sign up to have less members. You cant seriously hold bonds with all 3000+ members if your alliance let alone the 1 2 3000 allied members. Do we really want massive powerblocks and why?
A change in game mechanics?
How about a hard cap on the number of pilots from each side being implemented on vulnerable systems implemented by ccp. How about A soft cap of how many people you can have in an alliance / with standings implemented with a increase of costs per pilot/corp doubling each member. 10 corps costing 1bill, 11 costing 2bill, 12 costing 4bill etc.
I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas
If this truly is a sandbox game then really its down the the players to implement the rules as they should be limitless on the games side thus giving us all the control.
|
Sweetness Sideways
Gallente Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:34:00 -
[2]
-1
|
Xolax Castle
Minmatar F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:53:00 -
[3]
+1 |
S'totan
Minmatar Dashavatara The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 16:32:00 -
[4]
The day you put limits on the amount of pilots you can have in any given system/fleet is the day this game turns into every other MMO with "gear scores" and elitists.
The best thing about EVE is the fact that every individual regardless of SP or experience can play a role in PvP.
-1
|
Aedron
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:07:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Aedron on 21/03/2011 17:13:03
Originally by: S'totan The day you put limits on the amount of pilots you can have in any given system/fleet is the day this game turns into every other MMO with "gear scores" and elitists.
The best thing about EVE is the fact that every individual regardless of SP or experience can play a role in PvP.
-1
You don't understand what I am saying. In a sandbox game we should be the ones that can combat this issue not just CCP. If CCP "fixes" this issue then its less of a sandbox and more of a standard game, If we all collectively come to a universal understanding of how to make the best of the game then that truly is a sandbox.
The argument is then, why can we as a community not implement our own rules inforced by ourselves rather than wait around for CCP to fix the game. we are after all the player base that have the power to do so, no?
|
Dal' Hassen
Minmatar Black Serpent Technologies R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:15:00 -
[6]
Features and Ideas Discussion is that way ---->
.somewhere
|
S'totan
Minmatar Dashavatara The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 17:23:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Aedron
You don't understand what I am saying. In a sandbox game we should be the ones that can combat this issue not just CCP. If CCP "fixes" this issue then its less of a sandbox and more of a standard game, If we all collectively come to a universal understanding of how to make the best of the game then that truly is a sandbox.
The argument is then, why can we as a community not implement our own rules inforced by ourselves rather than wait around for CCP to fix the game. we are after all the player base that have the power to do so, no?
We can not regulate ourselves because of the sandbox. Somewhere at any given moment there is somebody willing to do whatever it takes to change the outcome of events. Even if that means lagging out systems.
|
Malur Fy'Lap
Caldari Solar Nexus. -Mostly Harmless-
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 18:01:00 -
[8]
There is a problem with this theory.
Recall that EVE is a "Massivly Multiplayer" online game. For me, whats most interesting is that fact that a "massive" amount of people can get together and call eachother names regularly while pushing F1 and F2 furiously.
This sounds great to me - also being the reason why I started playing this waste of time game.
The small groups of alliances/corps who say "down with power blocks" and "blobs" may not like it, but the essence of the game is that it is massively multiplayer-able... or at least, that's the theory. :S
Sure there's no lag with 10 man gangs ganking ships, but I could have also done this in 1997 over a 56k modem. I want to jump in a system with 5000 other people, kill some peeps, then get get killed and in the process either get emo'd at or enjoy watching someone emo. I really wouldn't mind waiting 20 mins for a system to load if i know it will load. Interaction with thousands of people is more interesting and more unpredictable than 5 vs 5. Period.
Limiting a system to 250 vs. 250 (for examlpe) is the same issue since it is only a bandaid; instead of waiting for system to load I would be spamming "Join fleet" for 2 hours trying to join a fight.
The issue is getting these massive battles to happen properly (or realizing that CCP is accountable for these problems when people lose expensive **** cause nothing ever loaded but u can still get shot) otherwise this game will just go down the scrapper... and we're all paying for it.
|
Rhamnousia
Caldari Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 19:30:00 -
[9]
there's no fixing the lag. because that means fixing human nature, and that's just outright impossible as far as programming go. there are ways to discourage blobbing.
i agree with the OP as far as game mechanic need changing, but only to that extend. ---------------------- What happens in Pelennor stays in Pelennor.
Forever Pelennor |
PeveS
Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:04:00 -
[10]
Best solution:
1) If a big fleet fight start screens get black (like now). 2) FC get an invitation to enter the big FC game 3) Both FC-s get a popup with PONG. 4) Winner of 10 rounds of PONG wins the fleet battle.
|
|
Capricorn 0ne
Caldari Heaven's Army Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:11:00 -
[11]
We could just load all the stats of the pilots and ships and system information into a RTS game and let the FC's fight it out Call it something like ALLERGIES 515 to go along with the release of DUST 514
Or I like the D&D suggestion using 20 sided dice.
RUST GSBG 2LGT2QT |
Jones Bones
Minmatar Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 21:36:00 -
[12]
Man, EVE end game pvp sounds epic. If I had better gear I would totally PVP like you guys. Alas, it is not meant to be
|
GambbiT
Gallente ROMANIA Renegades ROMANIAN-LEGION
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:01:00 -
[13]
i dont know if CCP care too much and this CSM really sound like a joke , maybe they would care more when we gone stop paying for our subscritions
|
Spurty
Caldari V0LTA VOLTA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:07:00 -
[14]
CCP could remove the ability to set +positive+ standings between alliances and enforcing 'alliance' standings overpowering corp standings.
Want to be blue to an alliance? Be part of it <period>.
Now, we wait for the 'overview' (that dumb piece of software that can't handle 200+ people on the same grid) to splinter the masses.
Hoppit!
|
Soldarius
Caldari Northstar Cabal R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:17:00 -
[15]
@all except Op, your butt-hurt is immensely appalling. Turd-posts galore and nonsense for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. GTFO
OP, nice thought, but it won't work. Even if the large blocs were to make some sort of a fleet cap or blue-list limit agreement, all they would have to do is break up into smaller entities with an off-line blue list and all the mechanics go out the window. Also any smaller entities could simply drop by for some fun and crash goes the node.
Lag isn't cause by crap servers or inattentive CCP employees. It's cause by us, the players. We will always bring as many as we can because we want to get into these epic fleet battles. As soon as CCP breeds more hamsters or upgrades to gerbils, we'll simply bring more players until the system is lagged out again.
Th only way to get heavily populated systems not to lag out is to put a hard-cap on the system. This doesn't mean that those stuck outside can't participate. They just can't do it in that particular system. Doesn't mean you can't have a cap fleet + support going for broke. Just means FCs will have to actually use some tactics beyond BRING MOAR BLOB!!!
Unfortunately, this would also allow for one force to simply blob out the system, thus locking out everyone else. So much for reinforcement timers.
Originally by: CCP Shadow ...I cannot guarantee (my) sobriety or decency.
|
Aedron
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 01:00:00 -
[16]
Originally by: S'totan
We can not regulate ourselves because of the sandbox.
Firstly, I don't see quite what you mean here. Maybe your idea of a sandbox game and mine are a little different. To me, its a game in which the players are given all the tools in order to create their own working content, If we all collectively decided that fleet battles are now only 250 per side it would be no different that if we where to agree a new price for ore or a mod, both of which if given enough people support it are easy to change.
2nd, I'm not here to be troll/ be trolled. Take your comments else where and let a real discussion actually take place on COAD for once please.
Originally by: Spurty CCP could remove the ability to set +positive+ standings between alliances and enforcing 'alliance' standings overpowering corp standings.
I agree that it seems that alliances of alliances is one step too far. In a game where the storyline indicates a harsh and cruel world in which resources are scarce it seems like you can have an unlimited number of pilots without impacting on profits at all, infact it probably increases profits due to internal sales and tax. It should cost alliances to maintain a force not increase their revenue.
Originally by: Malur Fy'Lap Recall that EVE is a "Massivly Multiplayer" online game. For me, whats most interesting is that fact that a "massive" amount of people can get together and call eachother names regularly while pushing F1 and F2 furiously.
This sounds great to me - also being the reason why I started playing this waste of time game.
Massive doesn't mean infinite nor does it mean all in the same system at the same time. EvE boasts over 30k members on line at any given time. I've been a large scale fleet FC numerous times in the north and south over the past few years and I can tell you a good fight/epic fight has nothing to do with numbers.
Numbers actually dull down fights, as lag increases the amount of manoeuvrability you have as a tactician is decreased. A truly good fight is around the 250 even on each side, one whole fleet. Next to no lag, where both sides mix it up a bit and do things unexpected.
My biggest issue with "blob" warfare is when I first started playing you where taught how to d-scan, find kills, scout and FC in small-medium groups as a standard. Large fleet battles where for defence or campaigns but the bread and butter of EvE was the smallscale stuff.
Forward on to today's eve players and its no wonder they prefer large almost staged combat. They don't know how to roam and find smaller scale fights. Some alliances idea of a roam is a 100 man gang, that's not a gang that's a fleet for taking out a strategic objective.
On a smaller scale each member of a fleet needs to be more skilled as a pilot, that is a fact. As you increase the number of players you decrease the individual skill required. Recent alliances I've been part of are at the stage now where 1-2 players generate ALL the content of the game for the masses, this is wrong. The standard fleet pilot of today's EvE will never truly experience the game until they break free from sov grinding warfare and opt in for smaller scale fighting, only then will they be able to look back and see sov warfare to date for what it currently is, mindless grinding of staged combat which is dull and somewhat boring. (burn through 30 stations within 3 months and you will understand what I mean, virtually 2 CTA a day for 6 months).
6 200 man fleets for an alliance taking 6 strategic locations at the same time would be more tactical and more fun than 1 large 1000 man blob in 1 system. The problem facing alliance there is the lack of FC capable pilots, its only in smaller scale warfare where you learn the tactics TO BECOME an FC :P thats my main issue.
anyways WOT over for now, pick this back up tomorrow.
Aedron
|
Calfis
Amarr F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 01:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sweetness Sideways -1
omg dutch
|
Pirokobo
Caldari Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 03:30:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 22/03/2011 03:32:30
Originally by: Aedron 6 200 man fleets for an alliance taking 6 strategic locations at the same time would be more tactical and more fun than 1 large 1000 man blob in 1 system.
You, are not a nullsec pilot.
If you were you'd know that if you send six 200 man fleets out against an alliance, all they need to do is drop a couple dozen supercarriers on you and some titans and you are dead. Then they jump away and kill your buddies in the next system, and so on and so forth.
The reason alliances bring 2-3 fully loaded fleets is to make the opponent think really, really hard about whether they feel like dropping supers on the field.
This is EVE Online 2011, the year supers decide everything.
|
Aedron
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 03:58:00 -
[19]
that concept was written up in full a bit more on another post. Basically 5 sub fleets and 1 super cap fleet. The super cap fleet would reinforce the sub-caps blah blah blah.
Let them jump supers into a system, you safe up. They move on you continue. its not all black and white, blob or no blob.
This has been tried and tested a number of times. Example:
In the south goonies attacked INIT's baby titans, they hit 3 systems at the same time. The main alliance CSAA's a key station system near by and a CSAA owned by a private builder. INIT setup defence in its main building system, When the time came Goonies hit the random CSAA and the station system while init achieved its objective of protecting the greatest asset it failed to protect the other 2 which tbh the random CSAA was most likely the main target all along.
THIS IS EVE after all, tactics > blob, it just seems the majority of the people playing these days are far less skilled / less willing to put the effort in.
|
Nik W
Caldari Critical Mass Inc. Majesta Frontier Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 04:21:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Pirokobo
This is EVE Online 2011, the year supers decide everything.
That is exactly why this game sucks. If you can't field huge super fleets don't bother.
I've now been "bff" in 2 different corps, and we are leaving because it's no fun.
No idea where we'll find fun, but this sure as **** aint it.
|
|
EI Digin
Caldari Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 04:30:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Aedron Greetings,
With the extent of lag issues and posts being implemented. Its clear that although CCP attempt to fix the lag issues within the game the problem isn't solely their fault more so than the super block alliances of today's EvE 0.0 environment.
The Topic
Ways in which we as a community can impact lag, what needs to change in the EvE Universe and what we can all do to help the game. As a great man once said "ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Getting the ball rolling. The issues:
0.0 super blocks now have ridiculous amounts of pilots at their disposal, it dosnt matter if CCP makes the game workable with 3000 in system because they will then bring 4000. What if an "EvE Rules of engagement" where written up which stated maximum fleet numbers in an engagement either a fixed number or a number set by both parties?
What if alliances as a whole cut their own numbers down, everyone in eve sign up to have less members. You cant seriously hold bonds with all 3000+ members if your alliance let alone the 1 2 3000 allied members. Do we really want massive powerblocks and why?
A change in game mechanics?
How about a hard cap on the number of pilots from each side being implemented on vulnerable systems implemented by ccp. How about A soft cap of how many people you can have in an alliance / with standings implemented with a increase of costs per pilot/corp doubling each member. 10 corps costing 1bill, 11 costing 2bill, 12 costing 4bill etc.
I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas
If this truly is a sandbox game then really its down the the players to implement the rules as they should be limitless on the games side thus giving us all the control.
No.
|
EOH Minigin
Caldari Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 04:41:00 -
[22]
fixes should include insentives to attack people close by, and insentives to have small bluelists.
this can be achieved through either isk-treaty system, or increasing the value of certain regions. things like removing jumpbridges and jumpfreighters could also promote devaluation of regions further from empire.
these are simple fixes not directly capping anything, but they will have a strong and reasonable influence on how the game is played and help making engagements more playable / fun.
WANNA PLAY POKER IN EVE FOR ISK????
www.eohpoker.com |
FrFrmPukin
Gallente Multiplex Gaming SpaceMonkey's Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 06:11:00 -
[23]
If you force the power blocks to pay more money via alliance maint dues, two things are going to happen.
1 - They will just trickle the additional iskies owed down onto their corps and those corps will just pay it. Power Blocks have money that's why they are called power blocks.
or
2 - They will just roll smaller corps into the larger ones and you will have more 4-500 hundred man corps running around.
People are going to fly and support whoever they want to no matter what. They will also will find loop holes around any cap restrictions you put up.
As I explained in another part of these forums. You need the big fights to happen because that causes major losses. Major losses causes ships and gear to be replaced. These ships and gear have to be built by somebody. To build them you have to ore, moon goo and now PI. The bigger the fights the better the economy in the game will be. It's is also better for CCP cause some people don't want to take the time to go through the industrial process to replace their ships and gear so they spend RL iskies to buy plexes to sell in game. CCP gets more money and hopefully replaces the old hamsters with more and better ones. That means we can have even bigger fights so even more stuff is lost. It's a full circle.
The players still control the game then. CCP just has to have the gear and code to empower all pilots to play the game however they want to play it.
|
OrDeR
Caldari Muppet Factory Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 07:35:00 -
[24]
If CCP want to fix lag just un-patch to Apocrypha. I miss my 6k vaga QQ
|
EOH Minigin
Caldari Eve Online Hold'Em ISK Six
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 07:39:00 -
[25]
In economics and sociology, an incentive is any factor (financial or non-financial) that enables or motivates a particular course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the alternatives. It is an expectation that encourages people to behave in a certain way. Since human beings are purposeful creatures, the study of incentive structures is central to the study of all economic activity (both in terms of individual decision-making and in terms of co-operation and competition within a larger institutional structure). Economic analysis, then, of the differences between societies (and between different organizations within a society) largely amounts to characterizing the differences in incentive structures faced by individuals involved in these collective efforts. Ultimately, incentives aim to provide value for money and contribute to organizational success.
but hey, im sure you know better.
WANNA PLAY POKER IN EVE FOR ISK????
www.eohpoker.com |
Azura Nester
Caldari The Foreign Legion Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 08:03:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Aedron Greetings,
With the extent of lag issues and posts being implemented. Its clear that although CCP attempt to fix the lag issues within the game the problem isn't solely their fault more so than the super block alliances of today's EvE 0.0 environment.
The Topic
Ways in which we as a community can impact lag, what needs to change in the EvE Universe and what we can all do to help the game. As a great man once said "ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
Getting the ball rolling. The issues:
0.0 super blocks now have ridiculous amounts of pilots at their disposal, it dosnt matter if CCP makes the game workable with 3000 in system because they will then bring 4000. What if an "EvE Rules of engagement" where written up which stated maximum fleet numbers in an engagement either a fixed number or a number set by both parties?
What if alliances as a whole cut their own numbers down, everyone in eve sign up to have less members. You cant seriously hold bonds with all 3000+ members if your alliance let alone the 1 2 3000 allied members. Do we really want massive powerblocks and why?
A change in game mechanics?
How about a hard cap on the number of pilots from each side being implemented on vulnerable systems implemented by ccp. How about A soft cap of how many people you can have in an alliance / with standings implemented with a increase of costs per pilot/corp doubling each member. 10 corps costing 1bill, 11 costing 2bill, 12 costing 4bill etc.
I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas
If this truly is a sandbox game then really its down the the players to implement the rules as they should be limitless on the games side thus giving us all the control.
confirming that the OP is ******ed.
|
Blackberry Bold
Caldari Pegasis Internecine Acquisition Of Empire
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 15:58:00 -
[27]
Currently everyone is lagged out in large scale fleet fights. Seems to me that is a pretty big disincentive to taking part in them. Sense large scale disincentives don't seem to be working the solution is to put more resources towards making those large scale operations more feasible. Fortunatly CCP seems to realize this and are working toward that goal.
Clearly multiple 200 man squads are not a good alternative to large scale battles. That option is already easily available yet players still chose the overly lagged fleet fights. Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know. |
Aedron
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 17:13:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Aedron on 22/03/2011 17:13:43
Originally by: StarSyth I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas
If you disagree with a statement, post your own view. The whole purpose of this thread is to get the topic discussed.
Personally If I was to introduce incentives/penalties system into the game I would implemented a player bounty system. The bounty of each player increases with the size and success of an alliance as well as the number of blues. Other factors would also then add onto and take away from this bounty.
CEO and Directors automatically gain a higher bounty, so too do people with key command skills trained. This bounty would increase with every ship kill your on and decrease with every loss, the more successful you are at the game the bigger the bounty on your head. Diminishing returns would be implemented to reduce farming of alts.
The Bounty would not be payable for killing pilots with + standings and increase for pilots with - standings. Wardec could also double a bounty giving it a use for 0.0 alliances.
This bounty would be paid out of the alliance holding corp wallet directly to the players involved in the kill. This would all be easy to implement with the API system.
PvP that pays to be small and effective, imo that would fix the game. What about you?
|
PFC Paul
Caldari Autistic Sharks Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 18:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Aedron Edited by: Aedron on 22/03/2011 17:13:43
Originally by: StarSyth I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas
If you disagree with a statement, post your own view. The whole purpose of this thread is to get the topic discussed.
Personally If I was to introduce incentives/penalties system into the game I would implemented a player bounty system. The bounty of each player increases with the size and success of an alliance as well as the number of blues. Other factors would also then add onto and take away from this bounty.
CEO and Directors automatically gain a higher bounty, so too do people with key command skills trained. This bounty would increase with every ship kill your on and decrease with every loss, the more successful you are at the game the bigger the bounty on your head. Diminishing returns would be implemented to reduce farming of alts.
The Bounty would not be payable for killing pilots with + standings and increase for pilots with - standings. Wardec could also double a bounty giving it a use for 0.0 alliances.
This bounty would be paid out of the alliance holding corp wallet directly to the players involved in the kill. This would all be easy to implement with the API system.
PvP that pays to be small and effective, imo that would fix the game. What about you?
Guristas agreed to this, and they seem to be down for GOODFIGHTS all the time. I don't know why the rest of EVE won't get with the program.
|
waynemcbain
Caldari Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 14:49:00 -
[30]
I like what the OP has to say, but Eve Rules of Engagement would only exist to be broken. Rules around how many folks vs how many folks and what ships to use is for the Alliance Tourneys (aka e-peen festival / non sov or moon deciding fights)
In space, there is no e-honor.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |