| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grimpak
Gallente
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
   |
Posted - 2006.09.11 23:27:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Nez Perces
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 21:44:53
Originally by: Grimpak
sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance."
I can understand that this concept is something that a lot of players will see as unworkable...
however, I don't accept that this is a valid reason.
If your enemy was attacking you with 100 pilots, in accordance to the treaty then you could field a maximum of 100 pilots to meet him.
If you have 500 willing pilots then leadership is under the obligation under such a treaty to find them 5 valid targets, not to send those 500 pilots into a lagfest from hell, where they will crash the node and spend several hours trying to log into the game.
If somebody gives me the option of sitting out a battle or spending several hours lagged to death, I know which one I would prefer.
sorry, I meant people that want to defend something, and not an attack of some sort. The example would be like Alliance A is defending. Arround 500 people want to help on the defence, but they are turned down because they can't be used.
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 00:02:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Grimpak
sorry, I meant people that want to defend something, and not an attack of some sort. The example would be like Alliance A is defending. Arround 500 people want to help on the defence, but they are turned down because they can't be used.
K lets use your scenario as an example...
Alliance X attacks Alliance Y with a fleet of 100 pilots. (In accordance with the 'treaty')
Alliance Y, however, has 500 pilots willing to lay down their lives for their alliance. Good stuff..
"Oh that means 400 pilots have to sit on their bums and do nothing.." I hear you say... well not quite, Alliance Y can be a little creative with their numbers... 100 pilots could be kept as a reserve fleet should the first 100 to engage Alliance X get slaughtered.
The other 300 pilots could launch a 3 pronged attack on Alliance X's homeland.
Result = All 600 pilots get to play the game instead of sitting in an almighty blob wondering why their modules are not responding and why nothing moves.
The alternative is to keep blobbing the servers to hell and back and instead of at least 200 pilots getting a good fight.. nobody does.. 
500 pilots fighting in the same system means only one thing..
nobody gets to play the game.
|
Lienzo
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 01:07:00 -
[63]
This fails to address the core problem of why 100 vs 100 fights are becoming so common.
-There are no costs associated with having 100 people back you up.
There is only a percieved benefit of possibly outnumbering the foe. What we need is a way to squelch this volunteer spirit but without damaging the esprit des corps. Ideally, people should have a reason to become more mercenary in the way they offer their time. The battlefield politics of waiting to field dreads is comprised of having a lot of pilots willing to stand semi-idle. The first behavior that should change is that standing idle should not only mean foregone income, it should entail ongoing and mounting costs going unmet. Voluntarism should hurt the wallet, if for no other reason than so it may be admired. Then corporations must be willing to foot the bill to keep their members on retainer simply to cover there costs. In this way, corp leaders choose to focus on activities which are focused on the bottom line. Perhaps there could even be tactical disadvantages to fielding large groups.
-There is too much concentration of resources on singular locations.
Because we can blob, we must blob. Because we must blob, POS have to be designed to take on blobs. It would be much better if POS had control panels or shield generators in multiple locations which must be simultaneously attacked and defended. If a force focuses all firepower on one node, they still have to knock down the other one in 30 mins or less. If the defense chooses to focus all firepower on one node, that node's static weapons should be weakened offensively by the loss of its sisters. This is the ideal of constellation warfare and sovereignty.
|
Aaron Static
Deep Space Consortium
Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 08:12:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Nez Perces
600 pilots fighting in the same system means only one thing..
none of them get to play EVE.
/signed
I like the idea.
The problem is how CCP would enforce/implement it...
- Limit numbers of any single alliance/gang in a system to 100
This would jus mean people get creative and hire mercs to increase the size of their blob and remain within limits.
- Limit the size of any gang to 100
This is obviously flawed.. split your gangs up and use ventrilo / alliance chat and this rule means nothing..
- Simply limit the amount of combat that can take place in a system
Basically if there is more than 100 pilots shooting at another 100 pilots that arent in the same alliance, then you can't target anyone. This -could- work but could also introduce a whole new range of problems...
I think CCP would have a hard time trying to come up with a solution that works in all situations and isnt exploitable in some way...
or...
- Don't limit it.. jus nerf it
What if a Blob was nerfed in some way?? the bigger the gang, the more negative bonuses are introduced... this wouldnt stop 'blobbing' once and for all, but at least discourage it no?
|
BirdBleed
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 08:51:00 -
[65]
never gonna happen nez :)
Thats like trying to make people stop using t2 guns with t2 long range ammo just to make it fair for the newbies ...
|
Drilla
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 09:25:00 -
[66]
I wouldnt agree to any such deal and there's a simple reason why not - I shouldn't have too, the game should be able to handle it - CCP has had what, at least 4 years to fix fleet combat. So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
On another note - I'm all for "fixed" fights for fun as in 50v50 in an agreed upon system at an agreed upon time where everybody is loaded up etc. - that'd be kick@ss!
Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost! |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 10:40:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 12/09/2006 10:44:46
Originally by: BirdBleed
never gonna happen nez :)
Thats like trying to make people stop using t2 guns with t2 long range ammo just to make it fair for the newbies ...
well its not quite the same... the point of the exercise would not be to make things fair but to make things playable.
Not using t2 ammo or guns is akin to having a self-imposed handicap.
Not blobbing up a system past breaking point is common sense?
It kinda reminds me of spaceballs a little bit..
Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.
.. lets try some superlatives for fleet sizes..
50 (awesome) - 100 (epic) - 200 (insanity) - 300+ (retarded?)
Its basically the equivalent of those guiness book of records stories where they fit 30 people in a mini... its pretty outrageous but ultimately pointless 
Originally by: Drilla
So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
.. being serious for a second.. I can really understand this point of view. CCP should communicate with the playerbase about this problem.. or perhaps we can take their silence as an answer.....
|
Omeega
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 10:44:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Drilla
I wouldnt agree to any such deal and there's a simple reason why not - I shouldn't have too, the game should be able to handle it - CCP has had what, at least 4 years to fix fleet combat. So in my mind until they've actually done it or admitted they cant I wont do player workarounds.
On another note - I'm all for "fixed" fights for fun as in 50v50 in an agreed upon system at an agreed upon time where everybody is loaded up etc. - that'd be kick@ss!
trust me i once asked this to a guy who had wardecced RA (it was KiaEddz if i remember well) but he said he was too good for us and that he wanted to chose when and where to attack.
Don't speak english. F1,f2,f3...
|
Lag Fest
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:17:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Nez Perces
- The biggest enemy facing large fleets in the game in its current state is LAG.
- CCP know that LAG is a problem, and we must assume they are doing everything within their power to alleviate it. (if we cant assume this then there is no point playing the game at all)
- LAG isn't going to go away anytime soon, in fact it may steadily deteriorate before it gets any better.
- Engagments at Battle POS are most succeptible to LAG and give the defender a distinct advantage as POS guns do not suffer from said lag.
Geez... what did i do now... whatever it is i swear Tamora and Rohan made me do it. Although it's flattering to know that you see me as the biggest threat in fleet fights, i try to do my best and yes CCP is afraid of me so they're avoiding to see me as a "problem" cos i would just pwn them. No i have no plan on quitting eve anytime soon. Offcourse it's not fair towards the attackers when i'm defending a POS not that BoB has ever needed to defend one so...
THX for the encouraging words,
Lag Fest signing out.
_______________________________________
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:40:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Lag Fest
No I have no plan on quitting eve anytime soon.
|
Serge
Amarr
Nun Amun
Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 11:53:00 -
[71]
- introduce handicaps for gang size (taken from 'hearts of iron')
- gang boni (from skills, command ships, implants, modules whatever) still work but decrease with gang size, effectivly zeroing out at gang size = X, penalty introduced at gang size = X+1 etx
- add more gang boni/penalty like damage output, tracking, damage resistance, again coupled with gang size
--> this favors small groups of high skilled pilots
--> leads to formation of many small gangs to get highest boni
--> is not decreasing blob/lag but i still like my ideas / suggestions :P
---
Mahlzeit, s¦gibt Bohnen mit Speck |
Eyeris
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 13:58:00 -
[72]
Limit number of gang members to 10-20 people.
Smaller gangs = less "gang warping 100+ people" = more scattered fleet = more small skirmishes = less blobing
The only thing that I can think of that would work with the current state of the game.
Except maybe at POS fights :|
|
Sae Marr
Amarr
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 13:59:00 -
[73]
Your suggestion is unrealistic.
-
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 14:12:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Sae Marr
Your suggestion is unrealistic.
I agree it is unrealistic..
... but equally unrealistic is expecting the servers to handle fights beyond ~ 100 vs 100 per side.
So I guess we are stuck...
|
RichThugster
Gallente
Revelations Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 14:38:00 -
[75]
i read the OP, but lack time to read the rest, therefore probs already been said. It means that the MC, would be able to go in and obliterate EVERYONE. MC, can field fleets of 100 members. It is well known MC has some of the best PVPers and FCs in game. the one thing which the likes of Goons, ASCN, etc had that could hold MC at bay, was the fact they can sit 150-200 ppl on a gate to camp it 23/7 no sweat. Implementing these changes would render huge megaalliances vulnerable, to a small group like MC, who has awesome PVPers, but lack the mega numbers.
Yes one fleet can sit as a reserve, however lets be honest, an ASCN 100bs fleet V MC 100bs fleet, ASCN would get nothing short of butchered. Second fleet step in, and meet the exact same end. the result being 200 ASCN losses, with maybe 50 tops MC. Whereas if ASCN fought with the full power they were capable with, it would be a totally different story.
sure caps on fleet numbers reduce lag, but ruin the idea behind building a huge powerful mega alliance
Originally by: KIATolon
I just got owned
|
Halseth Durn
Amarr
Oberon Incorporated
Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 16:59:00 -
[76]
The hungry mouths of POSs and thier undisputed lag have completely destroyed the fun of alliance warfare. End of subject.
|
Da Maddness
Deimos Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:14:00 -
[77]
Hats off to you Nez for coming up with ideas.
However I have to agree with whats already been said above but let me state what I think (and probably others have already said)
1)The 4 big alliances don't actually get any benefit from this. Infact wouldn't they lose out as they are the ones with the most numbers?
2)Think about the organisation involved in setting up a group of people. You'd have to find out who has the better skills and better ship setups...etc. I don't see a way how even an Automatic toll could be setup.
3)Alot of players will miss out on the experiences of big battles. If a new player is in BOB they'll never get to part of their limited 100 person fleet battles as there are much more experienced and better skills pilots out there.
The only thing that can be done is by CCP. Maybe have mroe processing done on the client side of things when it comes to big battles so Tranquility isn't so taxed. As it's already been stated, alot of people have really good comptuers out there. Maybe it's time to use some of that processing power (and sadly also bandwidth).
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:26:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 12/09/2006 17:28:08
Originally by: Da Maddness
1)The 4 big alliances don't actually get any benefit from this. Infact wouldn't they lose out as they are the ones with the most numbers?
Yes this concept would affect the big alliances the most as they are the ones that really field the mega fleets....
... however it would affect them the most in a good way, at least from my point of view....
they would be able to have fleet battles again without crippling lag.
For me the most fun part of my eve-career has been the awesome fleet battles I have taken part of, they are very exciting.
I do think that its a crying shame that a good fleet battle is fast becoming a thing of the past, as alliances keep ramping up the fleet numbers. And there seems to be no end in sight as to how big these fleets are gonna get.
I do think the numbers mentality is just plain wrong and no hardware is gonna be able to keep up with it.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 17:50:00 -
[79]
... just to expand on the implications of the increasing numbers mentality.
Two alliances: Alliance X ... Alliance Y
Alliance Y can put out fleets of 300 without much trouble.
Alliance X can also put out fleets of 300 without much trouble.
Alliance X attacks Alliance Y with a fleet of 200. Alliance Y says "hah. !!! I'll see your 200 and raise you 50."
Hmm alliance X reckons it can still call on another 100 pilots and does so. You end up with 300 vs 250 pilots facing eachother across a gate. They can barely move even before the fighting takes place, the lag must be atrocious...
You gotta ask yourself what is the point of these massive fleets, thats not playing EVE, thats messing up the server so bad that nobody can do anything..
I'll go as far as saying that its a borderline exploit. Both parties know that its pointless to expect a fight.. so EVE becomes an excersise in who can bog the server down the most.
Is this the future of EVE? Because that is the logical extrapolation of what is happening to the game.
And thinking that hardware is going to solve this problem is a fantasy...
|
Witch Doctor
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 18:20:00 -
[80]
I would like to see more commanders divide forces and create multiple simultaneous engagements rather than the big lag/slugfest. Take the 100v100 example - if I split mine into 4 groups of 25 as the attacker, yes, the defending force of 100 can easily secure one asset, but 3 groups of 25 can roam with impunity and cause a lot of havoc.
I think if savvy assault forces start to split up their forces and pursue multiple targets, then defenders will have to adjust and not just sit on a huge blob protecting one high-value target. Hopefully then the dynamic changes to multiple fleets and smaller, more frequent encounters with a little less lag.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 19:25:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Witch Doctor
I would like to see more commanders divide forces and create multiple simultaneous engagements rather than the big lag/slugfest. Take the 100v100 example - if I split mine into 4 groups of 25 as the attacker, yes, the defending force of 100 can easily secure one asset, but 3 groups of 25 can roam with impunity and cause a lot of havoc.
I think if savvy assault forces start to split up their forces and pursue multiple targets, then defenders will have to adjust and not just sit on a huge blob protecting one high-value target. Hopefully then the dynamic changes to multiple fleets and smaller, more frequent encounters with a little less lag.
I agree. Lag strongly influences the effectiveness of a fighting force, so fleet commanders who seek lag-free engagements will have an advantage.
An example -- let's say both sides have 100 pilots in system. Side A forms a single 100-ship blob, whereas side B forms 3 task forces of size 50, 25 and 25. B's 50-ship blob engages A's 100-ship blob, and the battle drags on slowly due to lag. Meanwhile, the two other 25-ship B task forces each position near an enemy POS, jump in dreads, and reduce them to reinforced mode. Side B will take more losses in the blob v blob fight, but wins overall because their two secondary assaults were unopposed.
|
Witch Doctor
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 20:28:00 -
[82]
I was thinking more along the lines of having the other gangs engage targets in other systems - camping bottlenecks, popping POSs elsewhere, etc. Within the same system as the blob, they can do a pretty good job of limiting your options, but if you start pounding on POSs 3-4 jumps away, that forces their hand much more.
They can stay overcommited to defending your primary objective and pay a high price elsewhere; they can move the blob and overcommit to secondary objectives, freeing up your primary; or they can divide their defending forces and scale their forces to the threats in question.
If we start to see that in megafleet engagements, then we would see more lag-free encounters without any artificial agreements. And, in fact, it would make more strategic sense. But in many ways it is a lot easier to just form up a big blob and slave everyone to a single FC and avoids any internal political issues about who is in what gang.
It's that or CCP figures out how to engineer a way to dynamically scale server resources assisting a node.
|
Zedic
Amarr
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 20:45:00 -
[83]
As I said in that other thread, Nez you (and others) have some very well thought out and intelligent ideas and solutions to this problem - but I sincerely feel we shouldn't have to resort to modifying our playstyle to help CCP with hardware / software issues.
I have the utmost respect for CCP, but as the saying goes, "out of sight - out of mind." If we lower our standard of play to a point where CCP's hardware doesn't lag, then how quickly would they put this issue on the back burner? We must continue to play the way we do now, we must continue to fuss about this issue. If we don't then it might be forgotten or ignored. I don't want that. I also don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to ask for lag free fleet battles - without any hard cap limits.
A sqeaky wheel awaiting some grease,
Zed
|
Luke Skyrider
DAB
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.12 22:55:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: El Covah
CCP favours the forming of big alliances and larger corps. The achievements to hold step with the "other" competitors just require a large team to cooperate if you want to survive on long term in 0.0. Titans, motherships, POS-networks, outpostes etc. are not manageable with small structures if you also need to defend your territory. Today you can see more and more mergers into bigger structures going on as a direct result of the game mechanics.
You are quite right, EVE is becoming more and more about teamwork and working together to achieve high end content. Whilst the industrial aspect of this is not susceptible to lag.. the combat aspect of it is.
You gotta ask yourself whats the point in building all these new toys.. DN's, Titans etc... if you will never get to play with them properly as they only come out when there are mega fleets, which go hand in hand with unplayable lag?
K we can say its CCP's fault.. and yeah in some ways it probably is .. but... do you really need mega-fleets to enjoy the game, I mean playing EVE is about having fun.
Atm it seems that the first line of defence for an alliance is to ramp up the numbers... and if the game becomes unplayable.. so be it... our assets are safe.
This may have been k in the past, but when alliances can now field up to 300-400 pilots in one fleet.. its madness...
Maybe some in CCP are missing the whole point that a game are supposed to be ENTERTAINING. EvE is not very casual friendly and it's a joke when players have to invest alot of time to remove boredom from the game they pay to play. The gameplay should not be boring to start with, period.
If CCP want eve to become a larger pvp game, then they need to wake up. Why should pvper pay a monthly fee with insane lag and tedious work when in other free pvp games you can have nonstop action without much work.
EVE are a good game, but some of the gameplay are just to boring. When CCP make their plans they need to ask the question, will this make the gameplay more interesting? if not drop it.
Some of the new toys does very little to make the gameplay more entertaining.
Nerf the big blobs (if the server cant handle it) and make possible counters. Just like in real life, use artillery etc. against a high concentration of troops.
ie.: In eve, expensive small-large tactical nukes destroying all non-capital ships as the ultimate blobbuster.
Or gang skills such as "guerilla warfare" that give small gangs big bonuses, encouraging big alliances to split up their fleet.
Other than that, create new strategical objectives in several systems such as ability to block the travel / supply routes with gate ownership and sentry guns.
The other problem with the gameplay, pvping as the dynamic force in the game should be more rewarding. Currently as the saying goes, non-pvper get richer and dedicated pvper stay poor. Because of all the new expensive toys, pvper either need to much tedious work such as npcing, mining etc. that are not their dedicated role or resort to ganking / avoid losing ships, creating a boring gameplay overall. If eve are supposed to be a pvp game, this need to change.
One of the solutions to this could be to remove the npc insurance and instead give options to salvage ships ie.: 50% of production cost.
This way, the rich non-pvper will start losing more ISK to the dynamic force in the game.
Bottom line to build a larger pvp game, the gameplay need to be more rewarding in terms of fun and ISK to back it up.
[PvP-Recruitment] | www.dab-online.com |
Lienzo
ISS Navy Task Force
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:15:00 -
[85]
Soft limits are better than hard limits. Players will just find an angle to exploit to attempt to minimize risk with hard limits.
Soft limits can be observed if we are able to somehow force the gang leader to think: "Do I really want to pay for having all these contracted soldiers out here for the next 3 hours?" and also "Are the potential gains high enough to cover the expense of this much overkill?"
Then you have a mercenary economics that is radically different from the Skinnerian "push button - get treat" models of pushing players to do this or that.
In the real world, when a pride of lions grows too much, they don't simply go a little hungry. They starve to death unless they force the young males to go off on their own.
Of course, most species, lions included, are able to subdue their reproduction rates by some little understood mechanism. That model is not conducive to EVE's success obviously, nor is increasing the amount of natural prey.
To adjust the game, you have to adjust the player.
|
Zedic
Amarr
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:59:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Zedic on 13/09/2006 08:59:40
Good thing this isn't the real world then. I hate to be all matrix-ish and such but in a digital world, rules are ment to be bent or broken. CCP themselves lauded the fact that we would all be on one server - something that seriously impressed the crap out of me and led me to apply for beta back in the day (no it wasn't this character, i was stupid and deleted the first Zed after release because the game was so damned buggy back then).
If I want to fly alongside 200 of my fellow allies in a mighty armada hell bent on bee squishing, I should be able to. If a swarm of bee's wishes to sting the mighty giant, they should be able to. And speaking of RL, since when to RL bee's have to sit around working out who gets to leave the hive and go on a rampage and who has to stick around mining honey?
I find it interesting that people commonly refer to fleets as "blobs" as if it has some sort of negative conotation. Fleets done right - aren't a bad thing at all, unless you're on the business end of it. 
Zed
|
Troubadour
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 08:59:00 -
[87]
I think a better idea would be for CCP to raise the monthly fee $1, and then take the extra few grand and upgrade the servers/bandwidth. Nobody is going to abide by some arbitrary rule that might of otherwise not cost them a large loss. And when you speak of a "fair fight" I ask you this:
What is the virtue of a proportional response?
Evenly matched fights rarely happen in eve because the probability of that happening is very low. It's much more probable to run into a larger or smaller fleets as there are many other combinations of fleets to pit against each other that are not equal to each other. MATHS IS FUNS!
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 11:49:00 -
[88]
There has been some excellent rational arguments and discussions brought up on this subject, and I really appreciate the time posters have taken to write some responses in this thread.
However, I am slightly concerned that quite a few of the responses hinge on CCP solving the issue of unplayable lag above the 100 vs 100 mark.
What happens if CCP has no intention/ability to allow fleet engagements over the 100 vs 100 mark?
What happens if we have been provided a sandbox and CCP are happy for the crushing lag at engagements with too high numbers to be the limiting factor for battle sizes? A situation analogous to deep sea diving, there is no point diving beyond a certain depth as your movement is restricted and oxygen becomes compressed to a level where your lungs are unable to function.
We have to entertain the idea that for the EVE playerbase 100 vs 100 is the technological limit that EVE can handle for the forseeable future.
What happens then, do we stop playing? Or do we adapt?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.13 12:52:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 13/09/2006 12:53:29
...
|
Exortius Amarrus
The Clearwater Society
THE H0RDE
|
Posted - 2006.09.14 18:13:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Exortius Amarrus on 14/09/2006 18:16:30
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Max Teranous
It can't happen. As well as all the other things mentioned above, how would you feel and react if you were in a gang of 110 and your FC told you to log off, as you were in the 100-110 bracket ? Any alliance which tried this would run out of members damn fast.
I personally would make myself a cup of tea.. sit on TS and listen whilst my alliance mates slaughter the other side fair and square 
Understandable, and it is noted that you said "personally". Still, most PvPers or fleet pilots in EVE don't pay $15 a month to sit on TS and drink tea, while listening to their corp-mates who are actually playing EVE. As a CEO, it would be very very difficult for me to tell one of my pilots that they had to "sit this one out".
edit, added:
As for "blobbing", and the advantage that this suggestion would give to 100 man gangs of all 30mil sp pilots, i feel that blobbing is a legitimate battlefield tactic. As such it should be allowed for by EVE.
As has been stated, i fear we are stuck. The only possible solution for this will likely come from CCP, and i'm fairly certain not everyone will like it.
------------------------
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |