| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adhamhnon
   |
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:10:00 -
[1]
I'd like to make a proposal that if you are invading enemy space that is claimed soveriegn under the new patch by an alliance, non-members of that alliance will not be able to log off in that space without their ships being persistent. (ie stay in space).
One of the biggest hurdles in defending a region isn't in forming a fleet that can repel invaders, it's the ability of invaders to just "log off" when they are confronted, and wait for a time when it will be easier to get ganks. If you are serious about invading someone's territory, you should be able to either detroy their ability to claim sovereinity over a system, or have the time to get out before logging off.
Now to clarify, this would only apply in systems where an alliance has 1 or more POS's and uses them to claim that system. People could still log off like now in unclaimed systems. This would also encourage alliances to claim sovereignity in important areas and consolidate their resources.
Just throwing the idea out there.
|
KrogothZero
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:12:00 -
[2]
I cant think off a better reason to bother to claim soverenty.
|
Winterblink
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:12:00 -
[3]
*hands you an asbestos suit*
I understand your standpoint, but it pays to be prepared. :)
___winterblink/warp_drive_active/eve_nature_vraie// |
Virtuozzo
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:12:00 -
[4]
Signed
Cheers,
Virtuozzo
RECRUITMENT TEASERS. |
Aitrus
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:13:00 -
[5]
uber-signed. Home field advantage FTW.
|
Volume
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:14:00 -
[6]
Signed..........
good constructive Idea there !
|
Angelus X
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:15:00 -
[7]
It would be interesting, if anyone disagrees with the thread poster, to hear some ideas as to why this might NOT be a good idea.
Personally I can't think of a single one!! 
|
BlackSabbath
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:15:00 -
[8]
Edited by: BlackSabbath on 24/06/2005 19:17:33
wonder if the stroke each other after they logoff? since they got an hour or two to kill
|
Hipsu
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:15:00 -
[9]
Indeed a good idea, tho there appl that might not like it :)
|
Paddy Murphy
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:15:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Paddy Murphy on 24/06/2005 19:21:46
I like it. The sovereignty thing will definitely create a boost in interest in alliances, and outposts.
You're a genius.
One change, you should let people log off if they can dock. This would be more in line with the new patch.
***
|
akakjs
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:16:00 -
[11]
the PvP logoff timer should help with this. Sounds good, might have to take steps to reduce station "blobing", but could prove to be effective.
akakjs
|
lord mut
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:17:00 -
[12]
cheers....
that would be one very idear sick ov system filling up with out any one jumping gates
|
Polaras
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:17:00 -
[13]
Signed. This would make soveriegn soveriegn w/o having to go strait to deploying player controled senturies. (sp)
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 19:18:00 -
[14]
Not even gunna touch it with a ten foot pole
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 20:12:00 -
[15]
Hmm. I like it.
________________________________________________________
|
Krapz
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 20:13:00 -
[16]
You stupid mother&*%#$#!!!111 That is the stupidist thing I have ever seen!!!@)$& WTF)#(&* LAME!!!
/end sarcasm. Sorry, just wanted to be the first one.
Actually, not a bad idea at all. Certainly keeps inline with the risk/reward goals of migrating to 0.0. Definitely should be tied to the claiming of "sovereign" territory though.
I like the idea, or something similar to it.
-- Insert cool graphics sig here -- |
Canine Fiend
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 20:35:00 -
[17]
I love the idea, signed.
----------------------------------------------
Proud Member of Celestial Horizon Corp.
|
Ranger 1
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:08:00 -
[18]
That would work as well. That way the owners of the system still have the advantage of their ship safely sitting out the 30 minute timer inside the bubble of their POS. Conversely, if the enemy managed to get up a single POS in that system (but still not enough to achieve soveriegnty) then that disadvantage would be mitigated somewhat.
That's not a moon...
that's my POS |
Oron
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:09:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Oron on 24/06/2005 21:10:55
nice idea but how you define "invading"? is invading enter with a single hauler? or is invading enter with a BS? or with 10 BSs or do you need 24,5? when do an invade start? when do it end?
hard do set the borders there..
|
Krapz
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:12:00 -
[20]
 Originally by: Oron
nice idea but how you define "invading"? is invading enter with a single hauler? or is invfading enter with a BS? or with 10 BSs? then do an invade start? than do it end?
hard do set the borders there..
Well.... If you're not welcome there... And you don't have a +5 standing from the Alliance Execueror, or the entity that has "Sovereign" claim to the system....
Then I guess that would be invading, no? Noob corp, enemy, whoever.
-- Insert cool graphics sig here -- |
Dionysus Davinci
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:16:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 24/06/2005 21:16:44
Crap, don't wanna have to fly 20 jumps just so I can log off. Espically if Comcast Cable does its wonder relibity dance.
PS Wrong section.
|
Adhamhnon
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:25:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Adhamhnon on 24/06/2005 21:25:48
Yes, whoever holds sovereignity would still be able to log off.
Originally by: Dionysus Davinci
Crap, don't wanna have to fly 20 jumps just so I can log off. Espically if Comcast Cable does its wonder relibity dance.
Chances are good you wouldn't have to go 20 jumps, unless the alliance has set up POS's in every system within 20 jumps of where you are. Remember, this isn't in any part of an area that someone 'claims'. This would only be in systems that is soveriegn territory under the conditions laid out by CCP for the new patch and such. Personally I think the ability for any alliance that works to claim soveriegn space to be able to actually confront and repel hostile forces outweighs the problems of a sudden ctd etc. The problem now is single, small groups or even fleets of hostiles who just log whenever they feel threatened, and log backin later hoping for easier targets.
|
larietta
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:25:00 -
[23]
if some one comes to your space he is there to fight not to log off when thay have shot one or two ships. you came up there to fight then fight not log .
this would stop that as thay would pay for there crimes or try and run ( or in some case's like i would offer )ask for a 1v1 with the same try ov ship
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:26:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Krapz
Originally by: Oron
nice idea but how you define "invading"? is invading enter with a single hauler? or is invfading enter with a BS? or with 10 BSs? then do an invade start? than do it end?
hard do set the borders there..
Well.... If you're not welcome there... And you don't have a +5 standing from the Alliance Execueror, or the entity that has "Sovereign" claim to the system....
Then I guess that would be invading, no? Noob corp, enemy, whoever.
Arbitrary limit. Some of work by other rules. Unless it's entirely configurable, it'd be an albratross and I think a waste of coders time in any case.
Say NO to target painters |
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:48:00 -
[25]
I think this idea can work and it is good.
The only concern is not to make system claiming too easy. If it is hard, it's possible that invading force would have to capture enemy systems in order to keep getting closer to alliance center. This has the potential of introducing battlefronts, rather than no-front battles, where attacks could happen at any system regardless of who controls what. So, moving in this direction can make things a bit more interesting.
|
FileCop AI
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 21:52:00 -
[26]
Why do you keep forgetting it's a GAME and you need to be able to play it as a game, not a life. Not all of us can pull off 10 hours a day to play eve, go in and sit there waiting until enemy fleet is small enough for your fleet to escape.
So you could actually locked down until DT. You expect everyone to just stay home from work/school/not sleep and so on, just because alliances should be able to have 99% secure systems?
Think please.
People claiming space are vulnerable. That's how it is and how it's supposed to be. If they can't handle it, they can move back to empire where they can be left alone.
Again: 0.0 is hostile space and should be DANGEROUS to live in.
FileCop AI of MASS
Co-CEO |
Adhamhnon
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 22:02:00 -
[27]
Originally by: FileCop AI
Why do you keep forgetting it's a GAME and you need to be able to play it as a game, not a life. Not all of us can pull off 10 hours a day to play eve, go in and sit there waiting until enemy fleet is small enough for your fleet to escape.
So you could actually locked down until DT. You expect everyone to just stay home from work/school/not sleep and so on, just because alliances should be able to have 99% secure systems?
Think please.
People claiming space are vulnerable. That's how it is and how it's supposed to be. If they can't handle it, they can move back to empire where they can be left alone.
Again: 0.0 is hostile space and should be DANGEROUS to live in.
I am thinking, and this does not change how dangerous 0.0 is, except maybe against logon traps, which most of us can agree are lame and pathetic. If you want to attack someone, you should be prepared to beat them, or at least die trying... or at least be good at being elusive. Logging takes no skill, a noob can do it. I can't see how you'll be forced to hang around till downtime, unless you get trapped somewhere by a fleet of the people your invading... in which case, look, you have targets.
You're right, 0.0 is supposed to be unsafe... it is supposed to be dangerous, and you should be vulnerable... but why should it only be dangerous to the defender?
|
Lorth
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 22:13:00 -
[28]
Fair enough, but could we have the same system for the allience. To me it seems the defenders log off to avoid a fight as often as the invaders do as well.
But frankly, I don't want to see this system implented. It penilizes far to many people other then the occasional ganker who comes wondering in. There should be no system in a game the penilizes you for logging off (save for the log off while in battle sploit)
|
bsspewer
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 22:20:00 -
[29]
Con's:
1) The problem with solving log off techniques is not in simply preventing someone's ship from disappearing, but differentiating between a legitimate logoff tactic and someone who has just had a client crash. You canÆt punish everyone for one groupÆs exploitation.
2) Sometimes when in fleetÆs that are in enemy territory or youÆre simply alone in someone elseÆs space, you will have to shut down eve due to real life. Maybe your wife is pregnant and just entered labor, or a phone call comes that someone has been in an accident, or your mother walks in the room when sheÆs told you to turn off the game and go to bed. The best reason, comes with some peopleÆs real life jobs. For me, I can be on call, and required to drop whatever IÆm doing to go to a crime scene. I would be fired in a heartbeat if I told the dispatcher, ôSorry, tell the dead guy to wait, IÆve got to dock.ö
3) To claim sovereignty of an area takes 24 hours. This means even though youÆve got more POSÆs deployed then your enemy or youÆve destroyed your enemyÆs structures, and you now technically own the area, you donÆt officially own it till after downtime and must leave the area, leaving it vulnerable to them striking back with you many jumps away.
4) What if an ôaccidentö happens and you no longer have positive standings with the alliance, or maybe you are kicked from the alliance? Now youÆve got a corporation of people who now are forced to leave the area or loose everything they own, simply because they canÆt logoff and leave at a safer moment. WhoÆs to say that an ôaccidentö does happen with standings with a corporation and it cannot be corrected immediately? Now youÆve got another corporation that is safe with your alliance, but is vulnerable to enemy attack just because they canÆt logoff, even though they are in their space.
|
FileCop AI
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 22:55:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Adhamhnon
but why should it only be dangerous to the defender?
Is it not just as dangerous for the agressor to fight as it is for the defender?
Often I'd say it's MORE dangerous for the attacker, as he will most of the time be outnumbered (personal experience).
If he's succesful just means he's better than the targets - tough luck.
FileCop AI of MASS
Co-CEO |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |