| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
ponieus
   |
Posted - 2006.03.09 19:28:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Lifewire
Edited by: Lifewire on 09/03/2006 17:11:16
@ponieus:
Unfortunatly you are right and EVE tends to be a blob-warfare-game more and more. But to show you what i meant i made a little grafic. See link/pic below:
http://sectorgame.com/eve/upload/blob-defence.jpg
image changed to URL - Sherkaner
Sorry forum-admins, pic is slightly too big, reduced size, but still little to big - donŠt baaaaaaaaaaaan me  .
However - this will make EVE absolutly stupid. An area like Fountain can be secured with 3 of these stuck-defences. Only capital ships would be able to jump in. This is the death to all smaller groups in 0.0 and maybe the end of good PVP at all. Blobwarfare and boredome - if we want this future for EVE, ok go on.
yes doing that what you explain is UBER LAME>. I personally think the hwole lockin up a system idea is probally the worst one CCP has come up with to date..
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.09 19:55:00 -
[32]
I donŠt even think itŠs that lame...i think itŠs a strategy to secure an area of space. There are more ways to lock down a sytem, for example place not 1, not 2, not 10, place 50 medium bubbles arround a gate and have a titan with doomsday device. One pilot would be enough to guard an huge area of space and make it impossible to enter it.
The question is: Is this what we want? Do we want that the big alliances "eat" all the smaller ones? At the moment alliances have no clue about what they do. They attack there and here, kill a POS there and here. Once alliance leaders understand what power they have with 1000-2000 members, titans, fleets and nearly unlimited ressources, they might find out what they can do. 1 titan = 1 closed gate - nobody can pass it anymore. And per 300 members, maybe per 500 an alliance hub can be created with is also nearly unattackable. I ask seriuosly: is this what we want?
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 10:54:00 -
[33]
If you want to go kid yourself that it's not about intention then please do so but don't come screaming when you get banned...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
steelmattthias
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 11:08:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Sherkaner
Originally by: hamishoo7
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.
You're right.
From the EULA:
Quote:
7. CONDUCT
A. Specifically Restricted Conduct
[...]
1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System.
So, intentionally filling a system to the point of blocking would make some GMs very angry 
Besides, with the new TQ hardware I think you need more than 500 alts 
Yes, but why create such a blatantly exploitable game mechanic in the first place? It seems that the whole 'locked gates' idea has many more bad points than good ...
Steel
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 11:55:00 -
[35]
Guess only the DEVs know the answer - but i wonder how long it takes to see the first 0.0 hub. And i dont see any way how CCP bans an alliance for building their own hub where they can run their logistic without pirates or war-enemys in local. The EULA does not help here and i know that CCP would never ban an alliance. They can also not ban the alliance leader. He might simply say:"i didnt give the order, all alliance players wanted to be in our hub, they just all came!"
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Necronomicon
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 11:59:00 -
[36]
"a -10.0 player travelling in a shuttle in highsec will get killed by Concord if he is not able to jump due to a crowded system. This nearly makes it impossible for -10.0 pirates to change their location. Cannot be right that a -10.0 player is totally stuck in a low-sec-system he cannot leave anymore or at least not leave without a really big risk to get killed by instalocking and cheating Concord ships."
Same goes for positive sec ppl shouldn't have to risk a damn good podding at your hands just to travel through low sec ;)
Swings and roundabouts my patchy eyed fiend...erm I mean friend :P
Up to now though, I have only experienced one instance of this gate stalling, and that was entering Jita...stay away from high population areas, and you should get through ok.
Carlsberg dont make Eve Pilots, but if they did, i wouldnt be one of them.
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 12:31:00 -
[37]
Quote:
Up to now though, I have only experienced one instance of this gate stalling, and that was entering Jita...stay away from high population areas, and you should get through ok.
DonŠt worry, we can handle it. I donŠt see that much problem for us when we want to move from one spot to the other. Sad is what could happen to 0.0 PVP once 0.0 hubs are created.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
|
Valar
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 14:12:00 -
[38]
The travel advisory system does *not* close systems that are blobbed/lagged. Only systems that are *stuck*
Read here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=302502&page=3#75
------
Valar
Database admin - Server operations team
CCP Games
How to write a good bugreport |
|
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.10 15:25:00 -
[39]
So if i got this right only the autopilot will disable when you want to jump into a stuck system. You are able to jump manually. Blobs/hubs do not close a system. This would be - acceptable. Lets hope players donŠt find out how to get a system stuck.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |