|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
202
   |
Posted - 2013.11.23 20:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:The solution is obvious.
People answer to incentives, but bad peformance is not incentive enough to stop piling every last possible ship on grid.
So, a incentive to stop piling ships on grid must be provided.
The war against poor performance in big battles is lost beforehand. No matter how much CCP raises the cap, every faction will try to outnumber the others and all combined will bring down the server.
So stop it altogether. Quality of experience is preferable to quantity of players bored to death as their game plays without them.
My suggestion: improve as much as possible the performance of 4,000 ships battles and add stacking penalties to fleet size and force proportion (that is, big fleets and fleets that massively outpower others will suffer increasingly harsh penalties).
While you're correct that the fight is lost before hand (owing largely to the quadratic nature of the scaling problem), that solution is garbage.
You were doing good when you said, "...an incentive to stop piling ships on grid must be provided..." but then you did an about face and instead tried to disincentivize that action instead of incentivizing another action.
A style of war that makes it strategically sensible to actually fight wars across a battle line (i.e., more than one system at a time), instead of at a battle point, would be far less offensive. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
207
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 23:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, I've got one.
Who are you again?
You forgot to add, "And why are your ideas so consistently awful?" |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
209
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 01:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Felicity Love wrote:Shitcan DUST, devote resources to running big fleet battles. Oddly, I'm not seeing a problem with that.  No, I'm not an IT person -- but I'm getting f'ing tired of TiDi in systems where there's me and maybe 3 other people. Seriously, CCP. It's past the novelty stage.
So you freely acknowledge that you lack the background to have an educated opinion on the subject, but then you go ahead and post your "solution" anyway? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
212
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 07:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Q, Lors Dornick: You are aware that people can use out game communication to organise themselves?
A: Even if they have no FC, they still are being logged off from the game. Also, ships without a FC are prioritized in the logoff precisely to avoid skipping the FC penalties. As an additional twist, high value ships could be prioritized too.
Q. Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
223
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 15:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Q, SurrenderMonkey: Are you aware how insanely idiotic a game mechanic that intentionally disconnects people from the game would actually be?
A: It is less stupid than risk to a node crash that averts the battle, and is less stupid than suffer 10% TiDi for 6 hours, and is less idiotic than spend time and resources to increase the population limit of a node so the alliances can move the goalpost farther again. And, on top of that, it would work. Keep calm and love the hamsters, and everything will be OK.
That was a really round-a-bout way of saying "No". |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
235
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 19:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:That is the best guaranteed bang for the buck.
Given the entirely speculative nature of the rest of your post, it's interesting that you throw in a "guarantee" at the end. You don't actually know what the "bang" would be, and the "buck" would actually be considerably expensive, when you consider that they would pretty much have to take all of their recent balancing efforts and do them all over again (among other things). |
|
|
| |
|