|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
   |
Posted - 2007.03.31 11:13:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 31/03/2007 11:10:42
 Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr
Originally by: Izzy Pol
Originally by: jamesw
Coalition needs to change tactics. a fleet of 1000 people is not going to work with the present state of gaming, and its not going to work in the near future.
With the numbers they had in the F-T operation, they could easily be taking down POS in 4 or 5 systems simultaneously (5 x 200 man fleets).
Try and defend that.
Don't come here with your common sense suggestions!
He's got a point. However destroying the capship yards was always going to take as many ships as possible when the defends had 400 in there already.
Sadly that rumor keeps popping up. Irony has it that during the fight the total local number never jumped above 450 and BoB had only 1 capital fleet (limited by gangsize below in theory 250 and in reality below 200) and a smallish supportfleet of maybe 50-100 ships in system and hence never exceeding the 50% limit during the fight.
So the number 400 is simply wrong and has been proven wrong by both screenshots and coalition member posts on this very same forum stating that local kept at 400-450. A number which included also many defenders crashing or not loading like the attacker, as was well documented by both sides in form of "omg i never saw anything and couldnt do anything" reports.
Just because some coalition members got told they can only bring in ppl to a max of 700 (per system) doesnt mean that maybe the defenders got similar orders aswell (just ofc limited to 350 defenders max). Which are just either ignored by the public or not told by BoB as they see it fruitless to stress out something which would only get drowned in Gm-foilhattery and prejudice.
As others stated the coalition knew from jv-1 perfectly well how the lag would be, that the game cant support x thousand ppl and that there would most likely be a nodecrash if ccp wouldnt intervene. Yet they still managed to come up with the "zerg" as the only solution to everything, full well accepting the possible outcome and as some coalition members posted even exspecting it.
Sorry your whinning and crying is just hillarious.
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 11:20:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
Originally by: Louis DelaBlanche
What if CCP hadnt capped the system pop limit though? would we just have another jv1v situation where one side crashes the node with all the defenders on it, then with their superior numbers just moves in more ppl to fill the gap & take down the pos?
I think either way this battle would have resulted in whining that CCP didnt do enough or did things the wrong way. Ppl just seem to expect too much of the technology behind this game. Just coz we play 20000years in the future, doesnt mean the rl technology behind it is so advanced.
I agree, it's a lose-lose situation given the current game mechanics; if it's not capped then it just crashes and it all goes to hell. But if it is capped, then it gives the defender perfect defense of a system, and you can't decisively win a war if you can't siege important systems(trying to simultaneously siege multiple systems won't work for previously mentioned reasons). You can't blame either side, but at the same time the current situation can't be maintained if it's just going to turn wars in to standoffs.
If CCP can't make the current game mechanics work on the current hardware they need to change the game mechanics, there's just no way around this. In the mean time though, what is there anyone can do?
Jamesw's point still stands. The strontium levels are not a hinderance atall considering the long distance bob space has between Fountain and Feyt. BoB couldnt just micromanage 100 towers coming out of reinforced in 10 different systems, neither could they moved 500 jumps in a laggy situation all evening to move to all these 10 hotspots, and if they tried you could try to delay and intercept them. Sometimes the objective is not to win just by killing or numbers but to reach your objective. Afterall that is what your whole coalition preaches when it comes to the rumor the pos might have been empty, or ? So use your logic on other occasions aswell.... If 50 dead dreads dont hurt 150 sacrified bs wont either or ?
Dont keep telling yourself those rumors to convince yourself that u had only the zerg as the one and best solution at hand....
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 11:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Minigin
practically i can understand why ccp did this... but i have to say... i find it highly advantageous to BOB for this to happen. had the server not been limited to 700 the node would have certainly come down... however by capping the system number ccp effectivly rendered the coalitions numbers (which really is their big advantage on bob) completly useless!
now weather keeping the lag to said "98%" was worth it i cant say... but by capping the numbers in system ccp gave bob a big boost. some people interpreted this as ccp giving bob a hand... im not as cynical but i think there was deffinatly clear advantage to bob with this cap on numbers in system.
the choice was easy to make. Either a fight with a rather leveled playingfield with a laggy but still "epic" outcome or no fight at all due to the server restrictions with a tearfully disputed "we couldnt kill the pos because the system didnt hold" / "we couldnt defend the pos because the system kept crashing" outcome.
What choice would you have made ? Especially considering the "newsflashyness" of this whole war and the internal advertising ccp does. Imagine if the signal for future "epic battles" would just be "bring as many ppl as it takes to kill the node and win" how many ppl would after the bob conflict be interested in epic battles ?
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2007.03.31 13:02:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
...
good reply m8 and i didnt call you a fanboy to start with.
However every game has a limit to what is possible. Be it in starcraft where u have a unitlimit, be it Dawn of War where u got a unitlimit and any other game there is. Even cs.s has a limit per max players per team. In eves case this limit is 700, far from "only small scale operations allowed".
As i stated in my posts above you simply dont know if there was a cap limit for defenders aswell. So any assumption "it will be easy for 699 defenders vs 1 attacker" is just that, a baseless assumption.
Aslong as CCP doesnt lay out rules we will not know what the case was and how it will be handled in the future. I personally would trade anytime of the week a "fight with equal numbers" (even if there is a caplimit) against a lagfest with 1000 nodecrashes and 3h blackscreen. Thats just me tho.
P.S. there is -no- game out there atm which can handle unlimited players in one spot without lag. Not the praised WoW can do that neither can any other game ive tried or looked into.
|
|
|
| |
|