| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
hamishoo7
   |
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:20:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Lifewire
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 16:43:55
Quote:
Hubs can also be "created" with a bob
Just read what i wrote lol - i meant can be created with a blob... No offense to BOB here 
I want to add how i would defend my alliance territory if i would be aliance leader:
Lets say TDG creates and alliance and has 1000 members. Roundabout 500 of them have 2 accounts and 2 pcs. I would order these 500 alts to go into a system i want to shutdown. Especially if there is only one way into a certain area, this defense would be absolutly effective. At the jumpgate to this shutdown system i would place a guard-team 23/7 that is equipped with some bubbles and 10 gunships. Meanwhile 990 members can go and make ISK in 0.0 absoltly safe. Even if another alliance would attack with large ammounts of ships, they¦ll have big problems entering this stuck system. And at any time the alts causing the stuck system can be replaced with a massive jumpin-camp.
So - blobs are a problem. And the newest solution just makes it harder to solve it. What we need are real anti-blob-features.
I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:39:00 -
[2]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:42:00
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:40:20
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote:
I understand what you're saying but I believe that would be using game mechanics wrongly and (im 99% sure of this) be considered an exploit resulting in warnings/bannings galore.
Blobbing was never considered as ¦sploit. It was done often before and destroys good PVP, boredooming all involved players in both fleets. CCP might solve this with calling it an exploit - they should! But in the end the real solution is to make blobbing useless and to spread out the players among the galaxy with a good balancing.
At the moment player numbers decide who wins and who looses in alliance warfare. Sooner or later even smaller alliances will have problems to defend their player owned station against bigger alliances that simply have more capital ships and a bigger fleet. The end is that only big alliances will survive. I am pretty sure that this is not wanted by CCP and also not wanted by the player-comunity.
We talk here about territory. A skirmish warfare corp like us does not own territory. We infiltrate it and terrorize it and that¦s ok how it is. But now consider what happens to smaller alliances (100-200 members) that setup their first POS in 0.0. There is no way for these people to get their own territory. The big fishes will eat the small fishes and the end is mega-mega-alliances or maybe one 1 alliance lol.
Yes but blobbing is using the advantage of numbers to defeat your opponent within the confines of the game, what you're proposing would be to deliberately try to overload a system to the point of shutdown.
Anyway, with 200 ships in a system I'm sure you could easily set up a camp that was going to let very little through anyway so if alliances had that number of people to spare I'm sure they could think of better things to do with them.
I do see the issues with stopping at gates however, but pirates with -10 deserve to be shot at wherever they go in my opinion.
You reap what you sew.
Edit: After seeing above post - the carebears (as you call them) aren't making a conserted (sp) effort to close the system. What you're proposing is.
Edit: Spelling 
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:45:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote:
but pirates with -10 deserve to be shot at wherever they go in my opinion
I know, we shouldnt be allowed to play EVE and Concord should instantly kill us when we log on until we create a new nice mining carebear character.
You're a carebear pirate?
Carebear industrialist definition: a miner/industrialist who doesn't want to be hassled with the pressures of pvp/low sec ganking
Carebear pirate definition: wants to be able to shoot who he likes but face no repercussions when travelling through high security thereby bypassing legitimate game mechanics by using insta bm's.
Your post, a bit hypocritical in my opinion.
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 17:50:00 -
[4]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:51:13
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 17:50:19
Originally by: Lifewire
Quote:
After seeing above post - the carebears (as you call them) aren't making a conserted (sp) effort to close the system
And this would be exactly the answer an alliance could give to a GM: "we dont want to shut down the system, it¦s our alliance hub where we trade and mine ore  "
At which point the totally gullible gm would say, 'oh i'm sorry. please take this navy apoc for your trouble and don't worry i'll see myself out' [/sarcasm]
|
hamishoo7
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 18:19:00 -
[5]
Edited by: hamishoo7 on 09/03/2006 18:20:25
Originally by: Lifewire
You are a carebear and a big one!
Carebear or not it's the same for everyone - corps who have been war declared could face the exact same situation. It's a change that will affect more than just pirates and I don't think it's a particularly bad one.
Originally by: Lifewire
Homishoo7, GMs never banned people for blobbing - that¦s a fact. And they will never ban a blob of 500 players because 500 x 10 $ per month is a lot of cash.
Regarding blobbing a system to the point of it being unenterable you're right that they won't instantly ban 500 people but warnings and the threat of bans are enough to make most people think twice.
Although I wasn't around to see it what you're saying will happen resembles when someone (think it was m00?) effectively cut the map in 2 by taking on concord at a choke point in high sec space. Now I'm not sure if people were banned at that point but I don't believe it's happened since...
|
| |
|