Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 15:49:00 -
[1]
CCP wants PvP and their ideas of how to bring it is beyond silly. The easiest way to increase PvP is to break down the power blocks.
How? Max number of members per alliance: 1,000 Max number of better then +0.0 standing an alliances can have toward other alliances: 3
This limits the max size of a power block to 4 alliances for a max of 4,000 pilots. With 4 alliances with their own leadership goals and interests then you can start to have real competition and real PvP in 0.0.
Sure a single 4,000 pilot alliance can break in to 4 and still be a single alliance under 4 banners but they would now become a power block unto their own and not be capable of setting others blue.
Power blocks could work together but without true blue standing then they are not gonna be able to live in close proximity and work with each other sharing bridge and station access.
Sure maybe the details or numbers can be tweaked and the idea can be finessed but the idea itself is the only reasonable way to break up the power blocks and bring PvP back to 0.0.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 15:55:00 -
[2]
Red is now blue. Change defeated.
You can't stop people from having friends, and adding in artificial limits like this is just begging for people to metagame around them.
What would you do about the corps that are bigger than you would allow alliances to become? How would you stop current alliances just merging everyone into one corp? Why is this needed when there is plenty of warfare going on already? (DRF/PL/friends Vs NC/DC/friends, DRF vs AAA, whatever the hell is going on in the southeast etc etc)
|
Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos Word of Chaos Undivided
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:00:00 -
[3]
How about just disallow alliance standings across the board?
~No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously.~
Tiericide |
J'aghatai
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:05:00 -
[4]
As long as many players want to be in a bloc no "limit hammer" will work. Its the way those players like to play the game. Make medium scale stuff more attractive and some players may leave the blob.
|
Kaelie Onren
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:07:00 -
[5]
I think a better way to encourage PvP is to fix the bounty system. It's less disruptive to the existing structure of the game, and adds depth and new career paths to the game.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Danika Princip Red is now blue. Change defeated.
You can't stop people from having friends, and adding in artificial limits like this is just begging for people to metagame around them.
What would you do about the corps that are bigger than you would allow alliances to become? How would you stop current alliances just merging everyone into one corp? Why is this needed when there is plenty of warfare going on already? (DRF/PL/friends Vs NC/DC/friends, DRF vs AAA, whatever the hell is going on in the southeast etc etc)
Originally by: Danika Princip
Why is this needed when there is plenty of warfare going on already?
CCP does not seem to think so. The last 2 patches have been geared to generate more of it.
Originally by: Danika Princip
You can't stop people from having friends, and adding in artificial limits like this is just begging for people to metagame around them
CCP can limit bridge and docking to better then 0.0 standing to prevent alliances from outside power blocks from sharing resources. Only one 0.0 outpost in EvE allows docking to all atm as far as I know.
Originally by: Danika Princip
Red is now blue. Change defeated.
CCP removes all alliance to alliance standing short of blue so your alliance is either blue or neut. thats how 95% of 0.0 operates anyway.
Originally by: Danika Princip What would you do about the corps that are bigger than you would allow alliances to become?
how is it handled now? If the executor corp CEO has more in his alliance then he has skills for what happens?
|
J'aghatai
DRUCKWELLE Evolution The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:27:00 -
[7]
Quote: CCP removes all -10.0 to 0.0 alliance to alliance and all corps follow alliance standings toward other alliances. this way alliances are either blue or they are not.
No. Red/Orange lists are used to count pilots of different alliances in local. Something you need in medium scale stuff quite a lot.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:32:00 -
[8]
Originally by: J'aghatai
Quote: CCP removes all -10.0 to 0.0 alliance to alliance and all corps follow alliance standings toward other alliances. this way alliances are either blue or they are not.
No. Red/Orange lists are used to count pilots of different alliances in local. Something you need in medium scale stuff quite a lot.
a very minor loss of easy/quick intel to bring the overall amount of pvp up I'd say.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: J'aghatai As long as many players want to be in a bloc no "limit hammer" will work. Its the way those players like to play the game. Make medium scale stuff more attractive and some players may leave the blob.
if alliance don't want to be in a block they don't blue other alliances..
|
J'aghatai
DRUCKWELLE Evolution The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:38:00 -
[10]
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: J'aghatai As long as many players want to be in a bloc no "limit hammer" will work. Its the way those players like to play the game. Make medium scale stuff more attractive and some players may leave the blob.
if alliance don't want to be in a block they don't blue other alliances..
Exactly, so make it more attractive to stay independent. Just limit the bluelists wont work as long as players want to blob.
|
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:56:00 -
[11]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 19/05/2011 17:07:12
Originally by: J'aghatai
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: J'aghatai As long as many players want to be in a block no "limit hammer" will work. Its the way those players like to play the game. Make medium scale stuff more attractive and some players may leave the blob.
if alliance don't want to be in a block they don't blue other alliances..
Exactly, so make it more attractive to stay independent. Just limit the bluelists wont work as long as players want to blob.
Its only more attractive to stay independent if you do not want to hold space. Otherwise your a 1,000 man alliance MAX that needs to thwart the attacks of a 4,000 member power block or a temporary coalition of power blocks interested in cutting up your space.
How exactly do you blob if the fleet size is limited to 255 and other fleets on the field that are comprised of temporary allied but non-block alliances will show neut to you on the battlefield?
What would be the motivation of block alliances assisting others in taking space if they can't fly through it, use bridges, or dock in it's outposts without appearing neutral and being shot at after the space is taken?
|
J'aghatai
DRUCKWELLE Evolution The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 17:09:00 -
[12]
Quote: How do you blob if the fleet size is limited to 255 and other fleets on the field are comprised of temporary allied but non-block alliances witch will show neut to you on the battlefield? Would you give away your teamspeak server details and have them follow your FC so one person can call targets for 3-4 fleets?
You still have tickers on overview, yes it will suck but not NC nor DRF or whatever will start to become the next generation of uber medscale pilots. Its not the way those pilots want to play eve.
Quote: What would be the motivation of block alliances assisting others in taking space if they can't fly through it, use bridges, or dock in it's outposts without appearing neutral and being shot at after the space is taken?
No idea whats the motivation to be just a number out of thousands and wasting tons of time for someone that hardly knows you at all. But many players seem to like it this way
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:02:00 -
[13]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 19/05/2011 18:09:12
Originally by: J'aghatai
Quote: How do you blob if the fleet size is limited to 255 and other fleets on the field are comprised of temporary allied but non-block alliances witch will show neut to you on the battlefield? Would you give away your teamspeak server details and have them follow your FC so one person can call targets for 3-4 fleets?
You still have tickers on overview, yes it will suck but not NC nor DRF or whatever will start to become the next generation of uber medscale pilots. Its not the way those pilots want to play eve.
Quote: What would be the motivation of block alliances assisting others in taking space if they can't fly through it, use bridges, or dock in it's outposts without appearing neutral and being shot at after the space is taken?
No idea whats the motivation to be just a number out of thousands and wasting tons of time for someone that hardly knows you at all. But many players seem to like it this way
If standing changes were in forced then power blocks of 24+ alliances over 5+ regions could not exist. One alliances owning all outposts in 4+ regions could not exist. The logistics and BS to maintain full time coalition of power blocks under a changed system would be too much for people to deal with realistically.
For instance... Picking a random region out of dotlan. Branch is Sov'ed by 6 alliances for a total of 13,800 characters. Under the change it would need to be a minimum of 14 alliances and 4 power blocks. Sure Razor does not live in branch so they would need to pass some ownership of their stations to other alliances or try and maintain them with 3 other power blocks of as many as 10 alliances in region not having docking rights. 3 other power blocks would need independent bridge networks. Their would need to be a cross block intel channel but no one could be sure if names linked were truly neut or not unless they showed info. Everyone in the region would have to show info on every new neut in local to see if it is truly hostile or one of the 10 alliances that are in the other 3 blue power blocks. SOV PvP would be insane because you would have 14 different alliances in a group of fleets all trying to filter the overview by alliance. You could not filter by distance, by ship, or by any other overview option.
Why would you go through the trouble of maintaining something like that? What would be the benefit? The power blocks would break up and stay broken up except for temporary coalition to take space to break it up amongst the coalition. Their would be no way to maintain them full time.
Only 4 alliances in the game would be effected by the cap and would have too many to form a block of their own. All of witch have a single 2000+ member corp or could drop the sub 50 member corps and easily make it under the wire.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:08:00 -
[14]
Yeah, because we don't already use more out of game tools than in game tools to organize blocs. Removing the few things we use in game is going to do next to nothing. There may be more pressure to merge up a few of the smaller alliances, but overall, nothing will change.
This signature is useless, but it is red.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:17:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Bagehi Yeah, because we don't already use more out of game tools than in game tools to organize blocs. Removing the few things we use in game is going to do next to nothing. There may be more pressure to merge up a few of the smaller alliances, but overall, nothing will change.
how could you maintain coalitions as they are today of your limited to having 4000 member blocks, you can not set blue to other blocks, and no other blocks or alliances can can share resources like bridges and outposts?
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:26:00 -
[16]
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: Bagehi Yeah, because we don't already use more out of game tools than in game tools to organize blocs. Removing the few things we use in game is going to do next to nothing. There may be more pressure to merge up a few of the smaller alliances, but overall, nothing will change.
how could you maintain coalitions as they are today of your limited to having 4000 member blocks, you can not set blue to other blocks, and no other blocks or alliances can can share resources like bridges and outposts?
Well, now that you have killed any alliance wanting to live in the deeper areas of null, ruined the fun for a large number of people and destroyed the several thousand pilot battles EVE is famous for, what are you going to do?
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 18:43:00 -
[17]
Sov 0.0 is for mighty player empires. Complaining about alliances controlling 0.0 is like complaining about lo-sec being full of pirates.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:04:00 -
[18]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 19/05/2011 19:08:52
Originally by: Malcanis Sov 0.0 is for mighty player empires.
they squash PvP 98% of the time. When they do clash it is 5000 people hitting a node until it dies.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:08:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: Bagehi Yeah, because we don't already use more out of game tools than in game tools to organize blocs. Removing the few things we use in game is going to do next to nothing. There may be more pressure to merge up a few of the smaller alliances, but overall, nothing will change.
how could you maintain coalitions as they are today of your limited to having 4000 member blocks, you can not set blue to other blocks, and no other blocks or alliances can can share resources like bridges and outposts?
Well, now that you have killed any alliance wanting to live in the deeper areas of null, ruined the fun for a large number of people and destroyed the several thousand pilot battles EVE is famous for, what are you going to do?
Deeper alliances will have to be more self sufficient and less reliant on the 20 jump bridge jumps it takes to get to high sec to buy a drake from Jita. But thats a challenge and hardly a drawback as most of the best null sec space is deeper into null sec.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: Malcanis Sov 0.0 is for mighty player empires.
they squashes PvP 98% of the time. And when they do clash it is 5000 people hitting a node until it dies.
Either post with your main or admit you have never set foot in 0.0
|
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:11:00 -
[21]
Originally by: The Racketeer Deeper alliances will have to be more self sufficient and less reliant on the 20 jump bridge jumps it takes to get to high sec to buy a drake from Jita. But thats a challenge and hardly a drawback as most of the best null sec space is deeper into null sec.
Nullsec as it is is incapable of being self sufficient. there are not enough manufacturing slots, research slots etc. Breaking up the coalitions will leave alliances with even less manufacturing ability than they currently posses, making them even more reliant on jita. Of course, if you had ever been to nullsec, you'd know that.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:24:00 -
[22]
Edited by: The Racketeer on 19/05/2011 19:24:39
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: Malcanis Sov 0.0 is for mighty player empires.
they squashes PvP 98% of the time. And when they do clash it is 5000 people hitting a node until it dies.
Either post with your main or admit you have never set foot in 0.0
I have been in null since June 07. I am currently in one of those alliances where I have to take 12 bridges to get to empire. If you need to know my in game name so you can try and tear down my reasoning then your flawed.
My last large engagement we attempted to abort a super in production. The lag was so bad that even tho we had more then enough people to kill the tower the mod lag was so bad the POS managed to shield tank the fleet. I think i managed 12 volleys in an hour.
|
Hekira Soikutsu
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:27:00 -
[23]
People will find ways around these artificial restrictions.
A better way to go is dynamic truesec. Do away with system upgrades and respawning anoms. Overfarmed systems degrade in quality while untouched systems become cookie jars. Make it so that you can make a hundred times more what you can make otherwise in a bad system. Sure it'll make life harder for 0.0 carebears and screw up renting arrangements but thats what CCP wants right?
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:29:00 -
[24]
Originally by: The Racketeer Edited by: The Racketeer on 19/05/2011 19:24:39
Originally by: Danika Princip
Originally by: The Racketeer
Originally by: Malcanis Sov 0.0 is for mighty player empires.
they squashes PvP 98% of the time. And when they do clash it is 5000 people hitting a node until it dies.
Either post with your main or admit you have never set foot in 0.0
I have been in null since June 07. I am currently in one of those alliances where I have to take 12 bridges to get to empire. If you need to know my in game name so you can try and tear down my reasoning then your flawed.
My last large engagement we attempted to abort a super in production. The lag was so bad that even tho we had more then enough people to kill the tower the mod lag was so bad the POS managed to shield tank the fleet. I think i managed 12 volleys in an hour.
Was that the attack on a CSAA somewhere deep in delve while IT still existed? Doomsdays cycling faster than artillery? I remember that one.
I also remember a huge number of smaller and much, much more entertaining fights I've been involved with as a member of the DC. None of those involved squashing PVP, or cramming 5000 into a system. Your suggestion would kill the game for me, and I doubt I'm the only one. Why do you hate fun?
|
Rico Minali
Gallente Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:47:00 -
[25]
While I firmly believe we need more incentive to get into 0.0, and more diversity in 0.0 too, I think that once you start to dictate how people play, you lose the elements that make Eve what it is.
If people want to blob, then you must let them blob, the trick is to allow more play styles in more areas, so the blobers can go ahead and lag each other out an dth erest of Eve have plenty of options to go about how they want to play/pvp/pve.
Im against forcing things like how many friends or members you can have. The NC and so on are like they are because that is how they want to play Eve. The smaller coalitions and alliances are like they are becasue that is how they want to play, neither should be forced to play any other way. Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing. |
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:50:00 -
[26]
I think CCP's idea of what 0.0 should be is alliances in a perpetual shift across the map. A universe where PVP is more common. Where its a struggle to maintain space and have a lasting presence in 0.0.
Today we have almost no shift and we have power blocks that cover hole quarters of the eve map with alliances that have been in the same place for 2-4+ years. For the time being, we have fights when we want them.. If the holidays or the summer is coming up some power block will invade some pet to make things interesting for a few weeks. Outside of that... they play games pitting their pets against each other in hopes of drawing the other out to fight.
Outside of SOV warfare... Being a part of a power block now a days means hostiles are 2+ regions away. The only time you see them is when you camp a null sec entrance, make an epic multi-hour roam out of blue regions, or when the hostiles come to you. When they do come to you they are not looking for fights but to gank or grief so they never engage if it looks remotely like an even fight.
I like this idea. CCP wants more PvP but is going about it by playing with sec, sov, bridges, and actually effecting the profitability of 0.0 to create conflict and reducing the risk vers reward.
|
Danika Princip
Minmatar Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 19:59:00 -
[27]
Originally by: The Racketeer I think CCP's idea of what 0.0 should be is alliances in a perpetual shift across the map. A universe where PVP is more common. Where its a struggle to maintain space and have a lasting presence in 0.0.
Today we have almost no shift and we have power blocks that cover hole quarters of the eve map with alliances that have been in the same place for 2-4+ years. For the time being, we have fights when we want them.. If the holidays or the summer is coming up some power block will invade some pet to make things interesting for a few weeks. Outside of that... they play games pitting their pets against each other in hopes of drawing the other out to fight.
Outside of SOV warfare... Being a part of a power block now a days means hostiles are 2+ regions away. The only time you see them is when you camp a null sec entrance, make an epic multi-hour roam out of blue regions, or when the hostiles come to you. When they do come to you they are not looking for fights but to gank or grief so they never engage if it looks remotely like an even fight.
I like this idea. CCP wants more PvP but is going about it by playing with sec, sov, bridges, and actually effecting the profitability of 0.0 to create conflict and reducing the risk vers reward.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
|
The Racketeer
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 20:02:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Rico Minali While I firmly believe we need more incentive to get into 0.0, and more diversity in 0.0 too, I think that once you start to dictate how people play, you lose the elements that make Eve what it is.
If people want to blob, then you must let them blob, the trick is to allow more play styles in more areas, so the blobers can go ahead and lag each other out an dth erest of Eve have plenty of options to go about how they want to play/pvp/pve.
Im against forcing things like how many friends or members you can have. The NC and so on are like they are because that is how they want to play Eve. The smaller coalitions and alliances are like they are becasue that is how they want to play, neither should be forced to play any other way.
Blob is such a relative term. How many people do you really need to take down a POS, SBU, or TCU?
If the block sizes are capped and somewhat balanced then the need to bring in friends and blob up local over 1k people will be lower. Your still talking about blocks as big as 4,000 members each battling it out. Even if you only get 10% of your membership on a CTA you're still talking about 400 vrs 400 people in local easy. Lots of fun and its not gonna crash nodes or cause heavy mod lag at all.
|
Canton Libron
|
Posted - 2011.05.19 20:08:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Canton Libron on 19/05/2011 20:09:16 Edited by: Canton Libron on 19/05/2011 20:08:31
Originally by: The Racketeer
Blob is such a relative term. How many people do you really need to take down a POS, SBU, or TCU?
P v P is in 0.0. Stop trolling. Fix empire P v P. Allow bombs and caps.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |