| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Volrath
   |
Posted - 2004.01.13 13:56:00 -
[1]
<continued>
The problem is that the EVE game mechanics currently make it impossible for the FA to win, because they are on the defending side. If ships would still be hanging in space after people have logged off, FA would have won 50 times over, because we would have sought out their hiding places and killed their battleships.
At the VERY least, when this had been the case, BA would have had to log off in 4C-B7X or HOPHIB, thus having a long yourney back to safety for them, a chance for FA to pursue their stragglers, and providing ample warning for us should they return the next time.
And if you ask me, ships still being in space after you log off is how it should be. So what if someone CTD's, there should be secure logs for that in the game client, and GM's should be able to read them when necessaary and reimburse ships if it actually happened that way.
The current system makes winning a war just a matter of striking at the right Real life time (for example, when its too early in Europe, and too late in America, then there is no defending fleet or a very small one), and since this is a game, we cant really expect people to be there all the time, especially when people have to work the next morning, but its easy for an attacking group of people to set their alarm clocks so that they wake up in the middle of the night and invade.
CCP should fix this, because it is not right from a game mechanics view, and not right from a roleplaying perspective, ships just disappearing in mid space because their pilot is sleeping or awaiting the right time to log in, coordinating with their buddies on external programs such as teamspeak.
|
Volrath
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 13:56:00 -
[2]
Specifically, this post is about the War between Fountain Alliance (FA) (us) and the Bovine Alliance (BA) this weekend. In this post i will show you why it was impossible for us to win even though we had FAR superior numbers.
For people who dont know what happened, i will give you a short explanation:
Sometime last thursday, the BA was coming towards Fountain, intel suggested they were coming with at least 20 people, so we started setting up a defense in UAYL-F, a system with 2 stargates, 4 jumps off the first station in the fountain core.
At the moment the attack by moo came, we had 40 people at the gate. BA came, was lagged to hell, and BA left.
When i say the BA left, i mean they jumped 1 system away and logged off to come back at another time.
The next day, about the same thing happened, UAYL-F was still held by the FA, and BA couldnt get in. BA logged off again.
Or so it seemed, for when the FA people for the most part went to bed, suddenly all the BA guys popped into the game and moved over the defenders. FA hastily set up a defense a few systems away, in Z30S-A, 1 jump from the first station in Fountain. This spot was held for 2 days with a few skirmishes now and then.
And then it happened again. BA logged in while most FA were asleep, and walzed over the defending team into YZ-LQL, there having a ball destroying our indies and lone pilots.
|
Nightfang
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 14:07:00 -
[3]
I totally agree. Ships that log off in space should stay there...
It's one of the more annoying things about this game as it is now.
|
Domaru
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 14:49:00 -
[4]
Would you have been upset if they had swooped in there while you were asleep and destroyed your BS fleet hanging in space? No, I would guess that the current system is a better answer at this time.
-Domaru
www.mentatalliance.com |
Nightfang
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 14:56:00 -
[5]
 Quote:
Would you have been upset if they had swooped in there while you were asleep and destroyed your BS fleet hanging in space? No, I would guess that the current system is a better answer at this time.
That's the whole point - that they would need to dock to be safe... which is a good thing!
|
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 15:07:00 -
[6]
Hmmm.. This would make it easier to 'pirate' people, and would thus be recieved VERY badly by the populace.
I see your point though, it *is* impossible to defend [stuff].
.
|
symtrips
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 15:54:00 -
[7]
Well alot of those things wouldn't be as big of issues if Player owned sentry guns where available.. It would make sense that a 1k + person alliance would be able to put up sentry guns and claim a region. IMO they basically are an empire unto themselves and should be able to defend themselves as such.. Maybe not with concords backing but atleast with the ability to keep unwanted.. non-empire entities such as pirates out of their empires space. Until these things are implemented in the game holding territory is a matter of attrition and who gets annoyed first and just wants to get back to playing the game instead of seeing how many times we can kill each other.
|
BobGhengisKhan
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 17:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 13/01/2004 17:25:54
Quote:
Until these things are implemented in the game holding territory is a matter of attrition and who gets annoyed first and just wants to get back to playing the game instead of seeing how many times we can kill each other.
To us, killing is getting "back to playing the game."
And you people are full of ****. You're not losing because we're too lazy to move back to 4C to dock. You're losing because we've won every single battle, with odds frequently near 3 to 1. Just go back to empire space with your agent missions and STFU
|
Xailia
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 19:52:00 -
[9]
Back in beta if you logged off in space, your ship would linger at the spot you logged off at for a few minutes, and then warp to a random part of the system automatically (and still be in the gameworld).
I think the Idea was you would be able to use the locator service of some agents to get the coordinates of anybody's ship. If they made the mistake of logging off in space, you would be able to find them and eliminate them.
I don't know why they changed it...
"The sky above the port was the color of a television, tuned to a dead channel." |
Artean
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 20:23:00 -
[10]
Quote:
Back in beta if you logged off in space, your ship would linger at the spot you logged off at for a few minutes, and then warp to a random part of the system automatically (and still be in the gameworld).
I think the Idea was you would be able to use the locator service of some agents to get the coordinates of anybody's ship. If they made the mistake of logging off in space, you would be able to find them and eliminate them.
I don't know why they changed it...
That sounds awesome. Would definitely add to the game.
|
0verkill
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 20:24:00 -
[11]
Edited by: 0verkill on 13/01/2004 20:25:36
Most of the times that we retreated were not due to the odds in your favor but due to the number of ships in a system and the amount of lag that it causes. If there were no lag we could have just walked through your big blockades like we walk through your little ones even when it is 1 v 3 odds.
0verkill
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean we aren't out to get you.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 20:28:00 -
[12]
When you stake a claim on 0.0 space you must accept the dangers, if fighting to control what you percieve to be "yours" is too much work for you, well you could always run agent missions and mine veldspar.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Morlocke
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 22:01:00 -
[13]
You fleas are soooo full of it. Face the facts - you couldn't tackle a fair fight if you tried. M0o = run and hide till no one left but indy ships.
M
|
qrac
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 22:15:00 -
[14]
why did u attack in the first place if the lag was so bad? of all the fleetbattles i was in we only retreated once while u retreated every single time we fought.
a lot of u had armour dmg and needed repairs.
then u started to come into yz when u outnumbered us after dt and such.
if u complain about lag u wouldn't even have attacked a single time. the last fleet battle we had outside the assembly station i had half of u guys registered at 0.0 km from me for a very long time and u still continued to fight until u retreated.
-------------------------------------------
Insanes numquam moriuntur! |
symtrips
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 23:30:00 -
[15]
Quote:
Edited by: BobGhengisKhan on 13/01/2004 17:25:54
Quote:
Until these things are implemented in the game holding territory is a matter of attrition and who gets annoyed first and just wants to get back to playing the game instead of seeing how many times we can kill each other.
To us, killing is getting "back to playing the game."
And you people are full of ****. You're not losing because we're too lazy to move back to 4C to dock. You're losing because we've won every single battle, with odds frequently near 3 to 1. Just go back to empire space with your agent missions and STFU
Ok I love the intellgent response you've provided. To make a correction from my point of view.. I distinctly remember moo/cow running from the first major battler between FA and the former mentioned parties.. due to lag or just being outnumbered.. and In most books about battles.. the retreating party is not the winner. I understand the game to you is about killing, and I enjoy a little pvping sometimes.. but the Dev's haven't spent 2+ years working on a game just so we can fly around and shoot ourselves.. agent missions are their for a reason whether or not you like them, and whether or not you lack the patience to actually sit down and try to do some constructive other than saying "Hey look I killed that guy over there who has a clone and will be back in 20 minutes with a new ship"
Seriously doesn't it get a bit redundent? But I'm not here to question your motives for playing this game. I made my post asking that the devs maybe look into the game mechanics and how they affect the ability of player alliances to control the space they claim more effectivly.. Because I'm sorry to say that some of us do have RL's and cannot be on and vigilint 23/7. So until Player sentry guns etc.. are in game ti's pointless.
|
Deadflip2
|
Posted - 2004.01.13 23:40:00 -
[16]
in essence it wont change ****.. ppl will just jump to safe points, on the flip side without ji points i dont see anyone surviving 0.0 for 2 long...
---
"this song reminds me of the girl i met on a schooltrip, she was really nice, and she really liked me.
I forgot to ask her her phone number" - Nelix trist
OMG im a pretzel!!! |
TWD
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 05:48:00 -
[17]
Edited by: TWD on 14/01/2004 07:41:59
Being able to warp to ships in dead space would be nice using some sort of module.
Ships staying in space while logged off is not a good idea IMO... what if your provider decides to go down for a few hours while you are travelling in 0.0 space :S
-edit-
how exactly do you want to find ships in dead space? first you need to know from what object to what object the safe point is made, then it takes a longgggg time to find it using bookmarks.
and if ships stay in space, and being able to find the safespots, it will be impossible to attack most of the alliances because you need to spend 2-3 hours each time you log on for travelling
|
EveJunkie
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 06:29:00 -
[18]
Quote:
the Dev's haven't spent 2+ years working on a game just so we can fly around and shoot ourselves.
Heh he, i guess thats why the only things we can buy/build are warships and weapon systems.
I must admit though I think ships should stay when a player logs off in space.
|
Psy Corp
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 09:04:00 -
[19]
adapt evolv and kill them when there online.. move the mining ops soemwhere els if you realy need to mine.. ohh and maybe you could get eveeryone that mines to stop it and fight to get them out.. 
I Have The Power Of The Mighty Lo.0lipop..
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 15:44:00 -
[20]
pirates have been argueing that blockades are impossible for ages.
finally FA understands it as well. great.
btw, player owned sentry guns wont change a ******* thing!!! (at least i don t think you expect ccp to hand out respawning, tech 11 uber guns to everyone, do you???)
|
Mikelangelo
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 16:45:00 -
[21]
This brings up a VERY good point.
In Shadowbane, they had a very interesting system that basically boiled down to "Capture the Flag".
You could start a city, and if somebody wanted to take it, they would have to declare a siege, and you had 24 hours to respond, with an defined time period in which you had to do your siege.
I dont see why 0.0 space could not be made "claimable", perhaps by building a private station in a system. You could then buy sentry guns (up to some limit based on your resources, or station type), and declare that system "yours".
Anybody that wanted to "claim" that system would have to take out that station, and "plant their flag" in that system so do speak (and of course, re-develop the system and the station).
Bases SHOULD be used to "claim a system". In all of sci-fi, for example, Star Trek, empires built stations, or battle-stations to protect their holdings, and delineate their spheres of influence.
I don't see why stations could not be used for the same thing in Eve. It makes sense. If a player corp wanted to claim a system or systems, then they would obviously want to have a station (or more) in there. Access permissions would enable people who were cleared to dock with the station, and not be fired on by the sentry guns.
This would not only require effort on CCP's part, but also motivate players and promote both stability and conflict (depending on your motivation). I think it would enhance and add another dimension to the game.
|
ga'ia
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 16:55:00 -
[22]
Quote:
btw, player owned sentry guns wont change a ******* thing!!! (at least i don t think you expect ccp to hand out respawning, tech 11 uber guns to everyone, do you???)
There will be different anti-ship specific types of sentrys, eg anti-bship, anti-frig. Belive it¦s coming with Shiva  .
__________________________________________________________ |
Wakey Wakey
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 17:02:00 -
[23]
I'll believe setry guns and stations when I actually see it in a patch coming to TQ and not before then.
They say it will be with Tech 3 things and would think so also because they've been working on them pretty hard but we all know how that goes with things in eve. Something more important might come up or fixxing more bugs to get it shoved off to the side.
Yes I know my character looks ugly, but I don't care its an alt  |
Wakey Wakey
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 17:06:00 -
[24]
Oh yea just like to add here as Volrath has said here plainly. Its a battle zone, yes people mine and such but WTH mine and haul in a warzone system. I'm sorry thats just plain stupid. Should be defending, not mining in dangerous area, or just not indying/mining when the masses of them are online.
Sorry to say get a brain and tell your corp mates not to do that or to be smarter and check the channels.
Yes I know my character looks ugly, but I don't care its an alt |
Nicholas Marshal
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 17:47:00 -
[25]
I think CCP need to get onto this asap. This issue is WAY more important than tech II or even tech III.
We need to have SOME SORT of system for declaring ownership of systems, and a way to properly defend them.
Keep this thread near the top. Hopefully someone will notice it.
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 19:35:00 -
[26]
Quote:
There will be different anti-ship specific types of sentrys, eg anti-bship, anti-frig. Belive it¦s coming with Shiva .
and this info comes from whom?
i know, some ppl (insert often used word here...) prefer the dirty work being done by npc things.
but if we think for one second, there is one big problem with any kind of sentry gun:
max range. any non-respawning sentry gun will be ganked from the distance, as soon as someone makes it into the system.
i see three "solutions":
1. unlimited range
2. the ability to pile up enough guns to keep ppl from entering the system (insta death)
3. respawning guns.
i still conclude: player sentry guns wont change a ******* thing.
the warp disruptors will. so these should have priority!!!
btw, the last time i read about player sentries being tested, they seemed to be rather, weakish...
|
ga'ia
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 19:49:00 -
[27]
Yea, they should stay really.. maybe is a server side load issue that arent currently?
Quote:
I'll believe setry guns and stations when I actually see it in a patch coming to TQ and not before then.
It¦s been mention several times (in csm for one) that "stations" (as we know them) will not be in the game for quite a while (like tech 5) because there is several issues with them that the devs needs to solve before that.
The devs have said that they want players to build bases instead (devblog, csm), consisting of smaller specific structers such as mobil refinery, mobil hangars, sentrys, shield emitters and much more depending on purpose of the base. It gives us, the players, a way of customizing how we want it.
__________________________________________________________ |
Fester Addams
|
Posted - 2004.01.14 21:10:00 -
[28]
I agree you should be able to claim systems, not entire regions but systems.
I also agree you should have to build a station to claim a system.
Once you "own" a system your station will provide resourses in the form of NPC (yes respawning).
At the lowest level it will give a small military help, mainly in NPC ships round the station itself but as you imporove the station and possibly build additional stations sentry guns will be built and placed at your stations and gates, when you have enough "station power" your control of the system will be complete, you will have centry guns at all stations and gates rivaling the ones in empire space, in addition your corperation will have a small but powerfull NPC fleet that will patrol the system looking for enimies, NPC pirates will dwindle and thus you will have a golden age in the system.
Now that is how I would love for it to work and maby it will but that will be tech 4 minimum :)
|
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.01.15 10:28:00 -
[29]
^ long way to go.
will be fun running the entrance systems to alliance space, each one being claimed by a different group...
shouldn t there be a way to retake a system from some players? (you don t seem to mention this...)
|
Silverlancer
|
Posted - 2004.01.15 11:42:00 -
[30]
READ MY OTHER THREAD! Here's how to fix this problem without making it unfair for pirates...
Quote:
You SHOULD be able to claim a territory for your own.
But you can't if everyone's offline... and the enemy attacks and steals the sector.
So here's the idea... sentry guns can be set up at gates. They're pretty cheap, and can destroy battleships if no one shoots them. But if attacked by even a decent sized fleet, they're dead.
But, after the sentry guns are killed, NO ONE CAN DOCK AT ANY STATION IN THE SECTOR FOR 12 HOURS.
Now when the sentry guns are killed, any ship that logs off in that sector STAYS THERE... it doesn't disappear. (for 12 hours).
And finally, create a "ship scanner" that scans for ships in the entire system that are logged off but are still visible--i.e. within 12 hours of sentry gun kill, and lets you warp to them.
You see where I'm getting. Attackers can attack all they want, but they AREN'T SAFE IN THE SECTOR FOR 12 HOURS. THEY HAVE TO HOLD THE SECTOR FOR 12 HOURS IN ORDER TO KEEP IT. And, they can't place their own sentry guns until its been 12 hours.
So you can't just run through a horde of sectors while the defenders are offline.
Note about sentry guns: Make sure they have a warp-suppression field (suppressed MWDs also, not just warp drives) with about a 50k radius (it disappears when all guns die). They won't have much health, and do enough damage to kill five battleships before they exited the field. But make them inaccurate--they won't hit frigates enough to get past their shield before they escape.
Here's the reason: The attackers would HAVE to kill the sentry guns in order to get a decent fleet into the sector without extreme losses. So the defenders couldn't just bypass the guns. Plus, frigates would be able to slip through, giving yet another use to frigates as a ship...
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |