Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 00:36:00 -
[1]
Ok, the idea here is to take a discussion off the map thread, (soon to be deleted) and place it where it belongs. Here.
The map has three progressive states: 1. Warzone 2. Contested 3. Claimed
The arguement: What constitutes each state?
My opinion on what each state represents: 1. Warzone: - Continious raiding by a group or entity - An offensive underway with intent to gain control - Significant pirate activity, heavily disrupting locals
2. Contested: - Raiding has resulted in a discontinuation of activity by locals - Offensive has gained a foothold from which to press forward - (nothing for pirates really, unless their intent is to control the region)
3. Claimed: - Peacetime activities can be carried out (mining, NPCing), relatively unhindered by the former occupants.
I'm going to use the example of the current war between The Coalition and FIX for this; not because I have personal feelings about it, but because I am intimate with the situation.
Many people feel that FIX holding the station in FAT, does not constitute a contested area (note: FIX isn't trying to contest the whole region). The same people also feel, that if the FAT area is to be contested, then the region of Querious should be as well, since they have a presence in the region (note: no stations taken, but forces in the region).
They do have their reasons for this line of logic. For one, they don't want to play 'ping-pong' (the taking of stations back and forth), and therefore state that they will take it back when they are ready to do so, and not before. The basic plan being (if I may be permitted to guess) to raid in strength, sap their opponents moral, and force a withdrawal from FAT by means of attrition in FIX home space.
- In my view, for raiding to be denoted as having succeeded in contesting space, the locals (FIX) would have to, for the most part, discontinued their regular activities. Generally this is seen by a lowering of alliance numbers as members withdraw, and an exodus of alliance members from their home turf. Mining and NPCing would have come to a halt.
FIX considers the FAT area to be a warzone, and contested, for the following reasons: - All Coalition activity is strictly military in nature, they have no capacity to carry out Mining or NPCing. - FIX has gained a foothold in the area by taking and holding the FAT station. (note: there has only been one significant attempt to take it back at this point; I believe that was mainly a probe of FIX abilities, and they have since fallen back to the plan of attrition in FIX space).
FIX considers Querious to be uncontested for the following reasons: - The raids have not had a significant impact on regular activities. - FIX has not decreased in size of membership (note: One corporation has merged recently, FIX has just added the addition of another corporation, and is being applied to by several others).
On a side note, while we have the ability to take the other stations in Catch, we choose not to do so. Within the week of NAPing with RKK/BNC/EVOL/R-N, and going to war with The Coalition, we came to the conclusion that having an enemy nearby to fight is a good thing for us. The taking of the other stations in Catch would simply have forced The Coalition to base from either within SE space, Omist region, or empire; not acceptable options for us. That wasn't the reason for the war obviously, those can be found here: link
This topic isn't about The Coaltion and FIX, but I use them as reference for what should be obvious reasons. Peoples opinions are divided on what the map should show. Lets narrow down the possiblities.
Please remember the following before you reply. What you post here doesn't effect what happens in-game, Intentions amount to squat unless words are followed by actions. The intent of this post is basically so that RF has food for thought on how to base his judgements in the drawing of the Eve map. It isn't an essential resource, it doesn't effect any of us in-game, but I for one rather like it.
Mods, I do expect some flaming, and some wandering away from the topic, but I would ask for some forbearance before throwing down a lock. It is a topic that could use some airing, and here is a far better place than on the map thread.
Folks, have at it.
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 00:39:00 -
[2]
Argh, not again! ----------------------------------------- Heinky> Dont mix eve with rl it can be bad for your health |
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 00:44:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Shin Ra Argh, not again!
If at first you don't succeed.... Until we have something halfway agreed upon by people, the map thread is going to continiously invite flames. Rather have it here than there, if you post, try to do it constructively. Give your arguement, state your reasons.
If you have nothing to say, don't post.
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:07:00 -
[4]
I want TheKiller8 to make a flash about the map.
While it would never happen, it would be pretty funny.
|
2ippy
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:30:00 -
[5]
tbh there are 2 states claimed and contested :)
war naturally comes with contested ya muppet :P
Alternative Territorial Map - INGAME - 02.06.05 Updated twice a week. |
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:37:00 -
[6]
How much does a map matter ?
Are there actual hordes of players out there feeling the hurt of being misinformed by an erronious map ?
Unless it starts listing chokepoints as 1.0's I dont think so. _______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues. |
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:38:00 -
[7]
Originally by: 2ippy tbh there are 2 states claimed and contested :)
war naturally comes with contested ya muppet :P
Hehehe, I disagree. An area can be under attack, yet not be contested.
Example: RKK/BNC/EVOL/R-N vs FIX. They weren't out to extract us from Querious, or destroy our alliance, they were there for a fight.... daily :D
|
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rod Blaine How much does a map matter ?
Are there actual hordes of players out there feeling the hurt of being misinformed by an erronious map ?
Unless it starts listing chokepoints as 1.0's I dont think so.
Could be I just had a knee-jerk reaction to reading all the crap in the map thread Don't ask me why I waded through reading it all... I'm a sucker.
|
Recluse Viramor
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:46:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Recluse Viramor on 02/06/2005 01:47:33
Originally by: 2ippy tbh there are 2 states claimed and contested :)
war naturally comes with contested ya muppet :P
Wrong, BoB and The 5 have attacked, some still are, the North, are they interested in territory? no. A warzone accuratly represents such aggression where a territory isnt being contested.
I agree with Avernus.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 01:58:00 -
[10]
I do agree with you somewhat Avernus.
But what constitutes a foothold in someones space? If we were to, say to put up a POS in 9cg would that be considerd a foothold in that space? And if we stoped you from doing anything but camping your fleet there would that make the constelation around 9cg contested? If you agree with that assesment then I would have no problem saying you contest the constelation around FAT.
The above statement is my views only and not the views of the coaltion as a whole
|
|
Blacklight
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 02:12:00 -
[11]
I pretty much agree with your suggestion, the problem still remains that both sides of any conflict (unless they have the bizarre and incestuous relationship BoB and FIX did, we even shared a chat channel in the latter stages of the war to talk nonsense whilst we ganked each other! ) will dispute the definitions and not agree on who is winning, in control, has a foothold etc..
The map will always be contentious so personally I just chill about it and don't worry what it says.
Eve Blacklight Style
|
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 02:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: FalloutBoy I do agree with you somewhat Avernus.
But what constitutes a foothold in someones space? If we were to, say to put up a POS in 9cg would that be considerd a foothold in that space? And if we stoped you from doing anything but camping your fleet there would that make the constelation around 9cg contested? If you agree with that assesment then I would have no problem saying you contest the constelation around FAT.
The above statement is my views only and not the views of the coaltion as a whole
If those conditions were met, and our pilots were unable to NPC and mine in the area (surrounding systems) due to it, then yes. That would definately be contested space in my book.
One thing I didn't really cover initially, and just thought of, is how much time should go by before you go from warzone to contested under such circumstances? I have a feeling the answer is as long as it takes RF to decide
|
Avernus
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 02:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Blacklight I pretty much agree with your suggestion, the problem still remains that both sides of any conflict (unless they have the bizarre and incestuous relationship BoB and FIX did, we even shared a chat channel in the latter stages of the war to talk nonsense whilst we ganked each other! ) will dispute the definitions and not agree on who is winning, in control, has a foothold etc..
The map will always be contentious so personally I just chill about it and don't worry what it says.
Don't be spoiling my meditative techniques here BL! Banging Head Against Wall requires intense powers of focus
Ok, I will admit, the chances of success here are, let us say limited.
|
djNME
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 05:25:00 -
[14]
Edited by: djNME on 02/06/2005 05:28:40 Edited by: djNME on 02/06/2005 05:28:16
Originally by: Rod Blaine How much does a map matter ?
Are there actual hordes of players out there feeling the hurt of being misinformed by an erronious map ?
Knowing the info Av. is trying to get out and explain or have understood.However I agree with black light and rod.I guess i never really look at the map much anyways:) I see red on my screeen in game and I engage it.I guess if we make a big enuff noise; the "map makers' will hear about it it anyways and change thigns accordingly, eh? see you in game fella'z djNME
|
SaorAlba
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 06:25:00 -
[15]
My thoughts.
1. Warzone -Continious raiding by a group or entity
2 Contested - Station(s) being held during some part of the day.
3 Claimed - Stations are under control for a long time without weekly take overs.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 06:28:00 -
[16]
I think the game itself should determine this.
Who owns a system should be determined by number of POS owned by, number of conquerable stations currently owned by etc.
A contested region is one whose region has conquerable station swapping hands more than x number of times in period n.
Stuff like that.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 06:40:00 -
[17]
I agree with Josh. Respect to the original poster's ideas, but until CCP puts in a game mechanic that does this, any player-made maps or claims are subject to debate. -
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
emptydude
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 09:38:00 -
[18]
Originally by: SaorAlba My thoughts.
1. Warzone -Continious raiding by a group or entity
2 Contested - Station(s) being held during some part of the day.
3 Claimed - Stations are under control for a long time without weekly take overs.
this would only work if all the stations in 0.0 were conquerable, but otherwise i think this is the best way to decide it.
|
Lord Sidon
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 10:03:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Lord Sidon on 02/06/2005 10:02:54
Originally by: Joshua Calvert I think the game itself should determine this.
Who owns a system should be determined by number of POS owned by, number of conquerable stations currently owned by etc.
A contested region is one whose region has conquerable station swapping hands more than x number of times in period n.
Stuff like that.
True, but last time i checked only in-game alliances could claim space (eg show on the in-game map) non in-game alliances only count to stop alliances from claiming space.
IMO only in-game alliances should get advantages to claiming space. 2 or 3 corps working together should not get the benifits that alliances get. if they do then whats the point of in-game alliances? . . .
|
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 10:33:00 -
[20]
PA is dead!
... oh wait --
2004.12.29 23:33:40combatMining Pollution Cloud hits you, doing 140.0 damage. |
|
corporal hicks
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 11:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: 2ippy tbh there are 2 states claimed and contested :)
war naturally comes with contested ya muppet :P
Were you not the guy who got flamed by alot of people for trying to do the alt map thing? sure it was not nice! I see it thought you nothing, when you come back here and flame someone else for there idea's
To the above sorry your map got flamed to hell and back.
While I don't agree or disagree with statments made, I don't see why a perfectly good post with some good idea's has to be shot to ****, give Ave a break he had a idea he wanted to pass it by people, I think the fact he put effort into it means it deserves at least a read and some constructive comments.
" Stay Frosty "
|
Raid
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 13:59:00 -
[22]
The map although meaningless ingame is a form of legitamacy none the less.. If the map really didnt matter to anyone, then no one would bother looking at it and no one would bother reading threads like these.. The fact is the same people who feel the map means nothing are the same people who will view it as soon as its updated...
Because its from a neutral party and because its somewhat regulated by the mods people cant help but feel the map is an acurate representation of the eve universe.. I have no problems with RF, he does a good job listening to both parties and coming out with as good an interpretation as possible... however, without clear guidliness the map becomes nothing more than propaganda... and if anything should be labeled as such...
Avernus i applaud your attemped at starting this discussion but i dont think it will lead anywhere.. The is no way of finding out who controls space.. some define it as those who own stations others define it as who is most active in the area and others have entirely different interpretations.. we will never agree on one.
|
Raid
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 14:03:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Raid on 02/06/2005 14:03:32 One more thought that i decided to make in another sperate post from the one above..
Instead of having contested or claimed reagions on the map, just shade in areas where groups have influence or are expressing their influence on the area...
As simple as it sounds, removing the white boarders from around a parties influencial area would go along way to ending the debate on clear cut claimed areas.. Once the boarders are goen you can simple shade in areas where other parties have influence (are ganking, conquering stations, setting up POS's, or anything else that may denote their active in the area.)
|
Zhuge Liang
|
Posted - 2005.06.02 14:31:00 -
[24]
We've already been through this in previous threads, the maps are NOT official, they have never been official and never will be.
People need to stop taking it so seriously, its a reference. If and when ccp decides to implement an official map then the sticky will cease to exist. But until then please look at the territorial maps as a player project made as a quick reference to warn other players of roughly whats going on around eve 0.0, and who is living where. Roughly being the keyword there.
Many will agree the map was much missed when it was taken down a few months back, and we'd rather all have it than be without it.
So please just take it as it is, a reference. Nothing more, and nothing less. Lets not over complicate things.
ZhuuÀ gheyÀleeÀyan (Kongming) |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |