EVE Search - Sorry, this battlefield is too advanced for your ship.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sorry, this battlefield is too advanced for your ship.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:26:00 - [1] To help reduce lag in fleet fights, why not remove low end ships from the grid? When the number of players in a single grid reaches a certain point, start removing less advanced ships. The order would be something like T1 Frigates -> T1 Cruisers -> T1 Battle Cruisers -> etc. Exceptions would have to be made for interceptors and interdictors of course. Hopefully this could serve two purposes. The first would be to reduce lag by splitting large engagements into multiple battlefields. The second would be to give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles as well. Right now they just serve as fodder for the big guys. --
TenthReality Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:29:00 - [2] Cause I've seen the outcome of 100+ person battles rest on the back of a 2m ISK ship... Hell, I've seen a carrier get tackled by a sigil.... Good proposal, but unrealistic, the PVP/Alliance people would go psychonaut on this.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:31:00 - [3] How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:32:00 - [4] Yeah, this sounds very realistic. Poff, you're gone - not advanced enough - please fly a battleship. --- Originally by: CCP Wrangler You're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, thats what hello kitty online is for.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:32:00 - [5] How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... - sig removed due to inappropriate content, email us for more information - Deckard ([email protected])
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:33:00 - [6] Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:35:46 Originally by: Tarminic How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. Maybe it could be set to remove an equal number from each side. Are these slide show battles with 20 seconds of lag really so fun that people would close their mind to an alternative? There would be nothing to stop the ships removed from the grid from starting a battle elsewhere. --
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:33:00 - [7] Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:35:00 - [8] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Tarminic How would removing T1 ships "give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles?" This would not reduce lag at all, but only give larger alliances an advantage because they're capable of fielding more T2 ships than their opponents.For example: Side A brings 400 ships, all T2, and side B brings 400 ships, 200 of which are T1. Suddenly Side B is outnumbered two to one because once the lag hits a certain point all T1 ships are removed. Maybe it could be set to remove an equal number from each side. Are these slide show battles with 20 seconds of lag really so fun that people would close their mind to an alternative? It's not a matter of fun, but a solution to lag most absolutely has to be a perfectly balanced one or else it will be exploited, and alliance warfare will turn into a joke by which the side that can exploit the anti-lag game mechanics better (more than it already is...) ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Trebor Notlimah Gallente Gunfleet Logistics Rogue Method Alliance	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:37:00 - [9] Why doesn't CCP move PvP alltogether to special, separate 'Battlegrounds' on a different server. Oh yea, I know why. Cause thats what WoW does. and WoW is ghey. Horrible Idea. <-- see the period? Good. Moving along...
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:41:00 - [10] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? No, because while the GMs may or may not cheat or assist BoB illegally, they would certainly never reference that most old of lines. - sig removed due to inappropriate content, email us for more information - Deckard ([email protected])

Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:42:00 - [11] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Crumplecorn How about 'to take part in this arena you must have the Ring of PvP'. And of course each Guild only gets, say, 100 Rings of PvP to distribute. Ah yes, I can see it now... Does BoB, through illegal GM assistance, simply get a single ring...to...control them all? No, because while the GMs may or may not cheat or assist BoB illegally, they would certainly never reference that most old of lines. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:43:00 - [12] Originally by: Trebor Notlimah Why doesn't CCP move PvP alltogether to special, separate 'Battlegrounds' on a different server. Oh yea, I know why. Cause thats what WoW does. and WoW is ghey. Horrible Idea. <-- see the period? Good. Moving along... Because instancing is stupid, and this is not instanced combat. It's just a measure to reduce lag. --
Freighter Pilot	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:46:00 - [13] Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no.
Jovoich Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:50:00 - [14] Shhh, go back to sleep.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:51:00 - [15] Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. --
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:53:00 - [16] By removing low end ships from the grid of a battle, you're effectively shutting off an aspect of the game from, say, those who can't yet afford a better ship, but still want to participate. Effectively, you're limiting the battlefield to those who have been playing for a certain amount of time, and have certain skills trained. Who are you to say that, just because I can't fly a Raven (for example), I can't join in on a fleet battle? If I want to enter a fleet battle in my Bantam, who are you to say I can't? Sounds kind of similar to something... what was it... oh yeah, level specific dungeons from other games. Can you say, pseudo-instancing? Large number of players in one area in ANY MMORPG = lag. Reducing the number of players allowed based on skill/ship selection is ridiculous. Say it with me now: Bad idea.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:54:00 - [17] Originally by: Kotan Gorn By removing low end ships from the grid of a battle, you're effectively shutting off an aspect of the game from, say, those who can't yet afford a better ship, but still want to participate. Effectively, you're limiting the battlefield to those who have been playing for a certain amount of time, and have certain skills trained. Who are you to say that, just because I can't fly a Raven (for example), I can't join in on a fleet battle? If I want to enter a fleet battle in my Bantam, who are you to say I can't? Sounds kind of similar to something... what was it... oh yeah, level specific dungeons from other games. Can you say, pseudo-instancing? Large number of players in one area in ANY MMORPG = lag. Reducing the number of players allowed based on skill/ship selection is ridiculous. Say it with me now: Bad idea. You can join a fleet battle. Just not the fleet battle with ships that will rip you apart in one shot. --
Indigo Johnson Minmatar	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:56:00 - [18] Its a boost to capitals I reckon...but then apparently we will all be flying them one day, so what then?
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:57:00 - [19] That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Indigo Johnson Its a boost to capitals I reckon...but then apparently we will all be flying them one day, so what then? Then limit it by size I guess. I don't know. Maybe a better solution will exist when that time comes. --

Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 19:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? --
Araxmas The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:02:00 - [22] Mc hammer -------- Robbie Rotten left me
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:02:00 - [23] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others.
Winterblink Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? How is a suicide mission taking away from the game, and not meaningful? If it was without meaning, then why do people come to the forums and fly off the handle whenever they get ganked by suicide fleets? warp drive active \| nature vraie
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf?
Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:06:00 - [26] Originally by: Zhaymus Hockhold Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf? high five
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:08:00 - [27] Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? --
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:10:00 - [28] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. Please elaborate on how the "need for speed" initiative is making things worse. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Dopple Minmatar Black Claw Exploratory	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:11:00 - [29] First this. Now this? Where did these people migrate from? These are not good ideas, granted I have none better that are not hardware related and very expensive. These are just not good. Fleet fights, why I don't care for the large ones, are a big part of this game. What would all the people cry about if it was not lag, desyncing or some other such thing. Think of the children before posting please. Someone say Hammer?
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Zhaymus Hockhold Originally by: Cosmos Elf Edited by: Cosmos Elf on 09/07/2007 19:52:45 Originally by: Freighter Pilot Theres gotta be a better way to reduce lag than simply moving people from the battlefield. That takes away from the scope of the battles, and makes the whole experience less immersing. Big no no. Like what? I certainly haven't seen any miracle hardware that can handle the numbers of players we are seeing at these battles. The need for speed initiative seems to be making things worse instead of better. In order to keep CCPs customers happy and the game balanced and customers lets tell about 20% of the game population never to play any more. I've got an idea almost as ridiculous as yours that you might like. Now those people who get poofed out of battle should have all there isk taken away and given to players who are "more worthy" because they fly BSs and T2. Actually no, lets all put them in immobile Burst frigates and force them to mine and if they try to quit then CCP permabans them, but keeps their subscription active. Thus breaking numerous fiscal laws but keeping their horrible game afloat. /horrible sarcasm (I think this is as reasonable as your suggestion) This has to be the single worst idea I've ever seen in the EVE forums, even the time that one guy from jita said he'd give me a CNR if I gave him 5 million. In essence you're trying to institute a caste system into EVE, telling alot of players in a sandbox game, that the way the have to play, (or prefer to play) is totally unacceptable at all levels. Now when would his lordship require his veldspar, as yet I am only a lowly serf? Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? --

Kotan Gorn	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:15:00 - [31] Edited by: Kotan Gorn on 09/07/2007 20:15:06 Originally by: Cosmos Elf Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? You're missing the point. You don't split the battles up. What you're describing is a form of instancing. This is a pointless discussion. They're not going to start limiting players as to where they can go or what fights they can participate in. If you don't like the lag, don't participate in fleet battles. Honestly, telling the few people that can't handle the lag to take a hike makes more sense, financially and in regards to keeping the gameplay as it is, than doing what you describe.
Fswd	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:15:00 - [32] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? Sneak around them, shoot the commander and drop a grenade in the turret. Aka tackling. --- snip Trolling removed - Serathu ([email protected]) Cool, my sig got nerfed
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:17:00 - [33] Originally by: Tarminic Please elaborate on how the "need for speed" initiative is making things worse. I guess you haven't been in any fleet battles since the rev II patch. The lag and desyncs make the game completely unplayable at times. We now enjoy grid load times that are measured in (double digit) minutes. Sometimes your client just loses sync and your only solution is to relog which almost guarantees your death. --
Mysticaa Gallente Fringe Roamers of Goa	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:17:00 - [34] Sorry, this thread is not advanced enough for this forum. Sorry had too! ----------------------------------------------- Why do I post here? Originally by: Tao Han "TANK CEO!!!" Quick Wrangler, to the Banmobile!!! Sig snatched by Xorus
Dread Operative Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:18:00 - [35] Edited by: Dread Operative on 09/07/2007 20:17:52 Originally by: Cosmos Elf To help reduce lag in fleet fights, why not remove low end ships from the grid? When the number of players in a single grid reaches a certain point, start removing less advanced ships. The order would be something like T1 Frigates -> T1 Cruisers -> T1 Battle Cruisers -> etc. Exceptions would have to be made for interceptors and interdictors of course. Hopefully this could serve two purposes. The first would be to reduce lag by splitting large engagements into multiple battlefields. The second would be to give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles as well. Right now they just serve as fodder for the big guys. I'm not quite following how it's possible to give "smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles", and remove them from grid... Smaller ships already make a difference in fleet battles. Interceptors are not the only small useful ship, you need to look at a full range of highly useful lower end T1 ships. T1 frigates tackle, how much more useful can you get? Destroyers help kill tacklers and that's about all they are good for - removing T1 frigates would already negate a whole ship class. Covert ops ships get warp-in's, probe for ships - highly useful. Don't forget that not all fleet fights are large BS fleets. T1 cruisers provide an ample way for lower SP pilots to make an actual difference (Blackbird, Celestis to name a few). On another note, if you took all the smaller ships off grid while the big ships fought, what do you think would happen next? Whichever fleet won on the "large ship grid" would head over to the "small ship grid" and wipe up. Edit: Please no lame excuses about not being in a fleet battle since Rev 2.
Flashheart Caldari Dangermouse Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:18:00 - [36] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? The Russians.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:20:00 - [37] Originally by: Fswd Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? Sneak around them, shoot the commander and drop a grenade in the turret. Aka tackling. There are specially trained units for that purpose. Grunts are not suited for that kind of mission. --
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:20:00 - [38] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? But...my liege you said that none of the serfs may access an educashun, and I am far too tired after working in the turnip fields to learn to such a complex and lofty aspiration. /end jack-ass In all honesty, I wouldn't split it up at all. Why? You will soon ask. Here's an analogy for you; in the middle of winter I do not go out into freezing rain in a t-shirt, shorts and flip flops. Because the outside stimulus (weather) dictates my behavior(clothing choice). Likewise I fly something I expect to lose into fleets because lag is very similar in-game to bad weather. The outside stimulus (lag) dictates my ship choice (something I can easily lose).
Dread Operative Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:20:00 - [39] Edited by: Dread Operative on 09/07/2007 20:22:57 Edited by: Dread Operative on 09/07/2007 20:21:27 Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn That should be up to the player, not predetermined by the game-code. If I want to go on a suicide mission, I should be able to. I pay for the damn game, I'll fly where I want to. Yes but your suicide mission is taking away from the game. Why not fight a meaningful battle instead? So. You want to limit potentially hundreds of players to what battles they can participate in just to save yourself half a second of latency? Little selfish, if you ask me. Sure, you're making your game experience that little bit better, but you're "taking away from the game" for countless others. How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? RPG, or Rocket propelled grenade is a loose term describing hand-held, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapons. Edit: RL tackling http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5654867.html Edit: Sticky bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bomb
Kumq uat Gallente Round Table Enterprises	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:25:00 - [40] Two things. 1. Nobody is agreeing with you on this. You should prolly wrie it off as a bad idea. 2. Bringing up the idea of some kind of instancing with elf in your name is just bad form. www.eve-pirate.com author and goat molestor.

Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:26:00 - [41] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? Simple. While your enemy launches a massive fleet at your defenses that lags out the entire system, leave only a token defense force there to harass your opponents. While they're doing that, take the majority of your fleet and attack along several different fronts and concentrating all their force on whatever weaknesses they encounter. Your fleet will outnumber theirs without causing much lag, and meanwhile their fleet will be hopelessly stuck in the lagged-out system without being able to do much damage to you. ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:26:00 - [42] Originally by: Kumq uat Two things. 1. Nobody is agreeing with you on this. You should prolly wrie it off as a bad idea. 2. Bringing up the idea of some kind of instancing with elf in your name is just bad form. Probably because the majority of responses come from goons on alts. --
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:29:00 - [43] Edited by: Tarminic on 09/07/2007 20:29:30 Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Tarminic Please elaborate on how the "need for speed" initiative is making things worse. I guess you haven't been in any fleet battles since the rev II patch. The lag and desyncs make the game completely unplayable at times. We now enjoy grid load times that are measured in (double digit) minutes. Sometimes your client just loses sync and your only solution is to relog which almost guarantees your death. So you're claiming that bugs created with the latest patch, which may or may not be related to the Need for Speed, are causing excessive lag. I suppose you would rather them not try? Or are you going to fall back on the standard argument of "ZOMG People should be fixing bugs instead of making more content." Or maybe you'll claim that no one at CCP is capable of coding and that server lag is all their fault and they should be bought out? In all cases, see my signature. Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kumq uat Two things. 1. Nobody is agreeing with you on this. You should prolly wrie it off as a bad idea. 2. Bringing up the idea of some kind of instancing with elf in your name is just bad form. Probably because the majority of responses come from goons on alts. Why don't you post with your main then? ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:31:00 - [44] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kumq uat Two things. 1. Nobody is agreeing with you on this. You should prolly wrie it off as a bad idea. 2. Bringing up the idea of some kind of instancing with elf in your name is just bad form. Probably because the majority of responses come from goons on alts. Wow an ad hominem, you really showed your scary forum warrior face on that one. I guess this attack on Kumq uat foretells the fact that since everyone doesn't like your unusable idea you will now start flaming.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:32:00 - [45] Originally by: Tarminic Why don't you post with your main then? I never said posting as an alt was a bad thing. I was just posting my theory on why these people don't agree with me. --
Praesus Lecti Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:33:00 - [46] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? Concentrated firepower has historically shown to be a very prominent deciding factor in any engagement. Merely saying to everyone "don't bring so many people" will just not work, unfortunately. In order to help alleviate the lag/desync issue, the players themselves need to figure out ways to use the old military tactic of 'Divide and Conquer'. More targets that are still integral to the war effort that can be eliminated by smaller forces need to be located. POS's really aren't viable targets for small forces because to get to the goodies, you have to get past the control tower. It just doesn't pay to do things in small numbers if you want any impact of decent size.
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:37:00 - [47] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Tarminic Why don't you post with your main then? I never said posting as an alt was a bad thing. I was just posting my theory on why these people don't agree with me. Yep Goonswarm activated there threadnaught mighty quickly on something so inconsequential... ...and heaven forbid everyone disagrees because they're thinking of people other than themselves, the game mechanics, and common sense. The obvious reason is they...they're..uh..GOONS! That's right OBVIOUSLY. By bringing up goons you have proven you are just here to antagonize not help solve a lag problem.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:39:00 - [48] Originally by: Praesus Lecti Originally by: Cosmos Elf Ok how would you split the battles up while keeping it lag free and fair to all? Concentrated firepower has historically shown to be a very prominent deciding factor in any engagement. Merely saying to everyone "don't bring so many people" will just not work, unfortunately. In order to help alleviate the lag/desync issue, the players themselves need to figure out ways to use the old military tactic of 'Divide and Conquer'. More targets that are still integral to the war effort that can be eliminated by smaller forces need to be located. POS's really aren't viable targets for small forces because to get to the goodies, you have to get past the control tower. It just doesn't pay to do things in small numbers if you want any impact of decent size. That's true, but current game mechanics don't encourage divide and conquer strategies. Sending a small force to blow up a few pos guns 10 jumps away isn't going to do much. They can just send someone out to easily repair them later. More important/valuable targets need to exist before this can happen. --
Warrio Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:44:00 - [49] Originally by: Cosmos Elf To help reduce lag in fleet fights, why not remove low end ships from the grid? When the number of players in a single grid reaches a certain point, start removing less advanced ships. The order would be something like T1 Frigates -> T1 Cruisers -> T1 Battle Cruisers -> etc. Exceptions would have to be made for interceptors and interdictors of course. Hopefully this could serve two purposes. The first would be to reduce lag by splitting large engagements into multiple battlefields. The second would be to give smaller ships a chance to make a difference in fleet battles as well. Right now they just serve as fodder for the big guys. D- Sig removed due to being too freaking awsome. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Deckard Cain
Llerrad Gabemid Minmatar	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:47:00 - [50] ok elf... with my limited knowledge i'll try to sum up why your suggestion is less than great. 1) T1 frigs are not useless in such scenarios. The idea that it's the same as sending infantry against tanks is a stupid comparison, first because frigs in eve =/= infantry to bigger ships in eve as tanks. It's not even close, and secondly, i'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're probably not the military expert to be able to say something like that. 2) It might not be instancing in the strictest sense, but the end result is the same. hi, you guys can get in here, you guys cannot. you guys go there. hi, welcome to a split world where where you're allowed and what you can do depends on how long you've been playing. we decided to can freedom for reduced lag that only the elite would benefit from. yay, less freedom, less fairness and equality all around for everybody! wait no, that sucks. i'm a relative noob. but it'd still be cool to "play with the big boys". you're trying to take this away from me. and for that, you can would be snipped by mods.

Vasant	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:52:00 - [51] Every Ship Counts! Just take a look at goonfleet to see how much success you can have from using frigate/cruiser fleets. The solution to lag is to find a better way to handle calculations of movement. Not simply reduce movement by class restrictions.
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:54:00 - [52] Originally by: Llerrad Gabemid i'm a relative noob. but it'd still be cool to "play with the big boys". you're trying to take this away from me. and for that, you can would be snipped by mods. Us big boys want to have fun as well. You are also taking away from our experience with your futile efforts. It would be great if we could find a role for you in 0.0 that doesn't involve you jumping into a large/capital fleet battles where you only hinder other players, and dont contribute much. --
Zell Caldari The Black Raptors	Posted - 2007.07.09 20:59:00 - [53] not to mention it would gut GS capability...er wait...good plan A coward dies a thousand times, the brave die just once..
Cosmos Elf	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:00:00 - [54] Originally by: Vasant Every Ship Counts! Just take a look at goonfleet to see how much success you can have from using frigate/cruiser fleets. The solution to lag is to find a better way to handle calculations of movement. Not simply reduce movement by class restrictions. If the solution was that simple why are we still lagging? I have a feeling that a solution (that wouldn't make some players angry) doesn't exist at this time. --
Sorlac	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:25:00 - [55] Biggest reason why this idea should never be implemented is becuase one of Eve's biggest selling points is the fact that PvP is completely unresitricted in this game. PvP can and does happen no matter where you are and there should never be restriction placed on it.
Rh'jamiz Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:35:00 - [56] Edited by: Rh''jamiz on 09/07/2007 21:34:46 Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Llerrad Gabemid i'm a relative noob. but it'd still be cool to "play with the big boys". you're trying to take this away from me. and for that, you can would be snipped by mods. Us big boys want to have fun as well. You are also taking away from our experience with your futile efforts. It would be great if we could find a role for you in 0.0 that doesn't involve you jumping into a large/capital fleet battles where you only hinder other players, and dont contribute much. Aaaaand any and all respect for the OP just melted away. In fact, you've just overdrawn your account, and owe me approx. one billion ISK in overage charges. You are hardly the big 'boy' you claim to be if you do not recognize the usefulness of the wee frigs and cruisers, even in large fleet engagements. As many others have stated, just look at GoonSwarm. Every ship counts. And secondly, just what the hell makes you any damn better than anyone else? What, because you've got less of an actual life, you demand CCP remove the peasents from your sight? JoeBlow has just as much right to participate in the fleet battle as you do. So no, your idea sucks. You should have realized this when you failed to garner a single shred of support. And what does it matter if they disagree because they are alts? Their mains think your idea sucks, too. And no, I have no ideas as to how to remove lag, aside from hardware related solutions. To put it simply, I do not need to be an artist to know the painting is poorly done. ________ Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -LordHarold ([email protected])
Llerrad Gabemid Minmatar	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:37:00 - [57] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Llerrad Gabemid i'm a relative noob. but it'd still be cool to "play with the big boys". you're trying to take this away from me. and for that, you can would be snipped by mods. Us big boys want to have fun as well. You are also taking away from our experience with your futile efforts. It would be great if we could find a role for you in 0.0 that doesn't involve you jumping into a large/capital fleet battles where you only hinder other players, and dont contribute much. so i don't do anything, or i DO do something? whether you're a fan of goonfleet or not (i'm assuming not), like already said by other posters, take their example. obviously you're just flat on your face wrong about little T1 noob frigs not being able to contribute. you contradtic yourself by first saying it's futile, and later admitting they're at least mildly effective (ie "much"). that's a totally valid form of pvp imo. and like said by someone else, you're restricting pvp, and killing one of the main attractions of eve, the utter pvp freedom. so snippity snip snip to you, you snipping snip. go snip yourself.
Tarminic Black Flame Industries	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:43:00 - [58] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Us big boys want to have fun as well. You are also taking away from our experience with your futile efforts. Gosh, I sure hate it when those "lower class" of players try and go inferfere in our big spaceship battles. Why couldn't they just stay over in mexico...i mean empire...and mine or something' instead of trying to muss up our battles. I'm sure anyone with less than twenty million skill points would just rather do missions, don'cha'think? ------------ LAG - Hopefully teen-appropriate now. IBTL! IBDS/DC! IBTC! 1st in a BoB post! And other such forum tom-foolery.
An Anarchyyt Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:51:00 - [59] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Vasant Every Ship Counts! Just take a look at goonfleet to see how much success you can have from using frigate/cruiser fleets. The solution to lag is to find a better way to handle calculations of movement. Not simply reduce movement by class restrictions. If the solution was that simple why are we still lagging? I have a feeling that a solution (that wouldn't make some players angry) doesn't exist at this time. Why must you lag my internet?
Davos Breemer	Posted - 2007.07.09 21:59:00 - [60] After a few hundred years of naval warfare this is how the pros do it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg/800px-Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg Capital class ships are vulnerable to attack from smaller ships so you take a heap of smaller ships with you to try and defend against those vulnerabilities. Removing the smaller ships from battle will remove more than 50% of the fleets effectiveness because the smaller ships usually have specialised roles like electronic warfare. Battles aren't decided by fire-power but by tactics.

Lynal Gallente Peregrin Avionics	Posted - 2007.07.09 22:00:00 - [61] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Kotan Gorn By removing low end ships from the grid of a battle, you're effectively shutting off an aspect of the game from, say, those who can't yet afford a better ship, but still want to participate. Effectively, you're limiting the battlefield to those who have been playing for a certain amount of time, and have certain skills trained. Who are you to say that, just because I can't fly a Raven (for example), I can't join in on a fleet battle? If I want to enter a fleet battle in my Bantam, who are you to say I can't? Sounds kind of similar to something... what was it... oh yeah, level specific dungeons from other games. Can you say, pseudo-instancing? Large number of players in one area in ANY MMORPG = lag. Reducing the number of players allowed based on skill/ship selection is ridiculous. Say it with me now: Bad idea. You can join a fleet battle. Just not the fleet battle with ships that will rip you apart in one shot. yep, just like how in WoW you can go in certain instanced dungeons if your maxed lvl... but if you're a lowbie you have to stick to other certain dungeons because the bosses are just too mean in those other dungeons... there's a reason we play EvE and not WoW... avoiding bs like that is one of them. A fair fight is one you didn't plan hard enough for.
Praesus Lecti Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.07.09 22:15:00 - [62] Originally by: Cosmos Elf That's true, but current game mechanics don't encourage divide and conquer strategies. Sending a small force to blow up a few pos guns 10 jumps away isn't going to do much. They can just send someone out to easily repair them later. More important/valuable targets need to exist before this can happen. So lets think about what kind of targets could/should exist that A: Perform a vital and necessary role; B: Can be damaged/destroyed by small(er) forces and C: Are not readily available. Right now, everything hinges upon the existance of the POS. No POS = everything else going offline. CCP did make at least small steps to facilite the divide and conquer by moving some structures outside the POS shields, but not enough. I will say that beyond the existence of quality targets for small(er) fleets/forces, there also exists other game mechanics which work against this tactic: Multiple Accounts; Alternate Characters and (to a lesser degree) Local Chat. It's too easy to notice the build-up of forces long before an attack will take place. Alternate characters logged out in various key locations can provide instantaneous assessment of local happenings. A 100-person corp each with 2 alts all logged out in different systems can provide coverage for 300 systems. Heck, even the EVE map can quickly track the comings and goings of everyone in the game with a quite high degree of accuracy. So, given that the target that is the foundation of a corp/alliance is the POS and that object has huge shields and armor and can take a massive punishment before failing and that every move we make is shown on the EVE map and that every corp (guaranteed) has alts parked across their territory in sensitive/bottleneck systems to monitor movements just doesn't support small fleet ops. It's always in your best interest to throw as much as you can against a given target and win by brute force.
Hasak Rain Amarr	Posted - 2007.07.09 22:23:00 - [63] Originally by: Cosmos Elf Originally by: Llerrad Gabemid i'm a relative noob. but it'd still be cool to "play with the big boys". you're trying to take this away from me. and for that, you can would be snipped by mods. Us big boys want to have fun as well. You are also taking away from our experience with your futile efforts. It would be great if we could find a role for you in 0.0 that doesn't involve you jumping into a large/capital fleet battles where you only hinder other players, and dont contribute much. Okay this was the post that showed me your true colors. You are nothing but a moron. Please go away or drown yourself. I don't care which.
Zhaymus Hockhold Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.07.09 22:29:00 - [64] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Thom Daranta Edited by: Thom Daranta on 09/07/2007 21:46:36 PWN PWN PWN Keep the fights integrated! QFMFT! Thom Daranta is an Eve Hero
Thom Daranta Gallente Free Rasalhague Republic	Posted - 2007.07.09 23:07:00 - [65] Originally by: Zhaymus Hockhold Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Thom Daranta Edited by: Thom Daranta on 09/07/2007 21:46:36 PWN PWN PWN Keep the fights integrated! QFMFT! Thom Daranta is an Eve Hero Hold that thought for a couple years until I've actually done something I just want the chance to do it. I love the idea of Eve because noobs like me aren't shut out of areas and can use brains to actually contribute even when it's supposed to be out of our league. There are too many other games out there where this is not the case, with artificial boundaries because the content and world is so static that you follow the same path every one else has. Literally. And in the end, that comment about noobs having nothing to do in 0.0 except getting his way in battles points to the real reason for the post. Now, perhaps this was merely misstated. Do I think he has good point? Yes. If battles are bigger than the server can hold, there is an issue. But if I was not in the "real" battle involving enemy capitals and whatnot, I probably wouldn't even bother showing up. There was an interesting article in the first issue of Scientific American Mind about learning. The masters of any one thing excel because they constantly push themselves, facing opponents that supposedly far outclass them. It isn't practice, it is practice at the level of a master that produces master-level talent. What then would be the result of this kind of policy of splitting up fleets? New players would only rarely be able to achieve the level of finesse and knowledge for actual combat that is now achieved by whoever is making the calls today. Leadership development would be stunted because people would only be facing others in similar capacity to themselves in fleet battles. I'll never learn to judge timing when facing a capital ship if fleets are segregated by ship size or expense, until I am in an expensive ship. My CEO should cringe at that thought.
Havoc GunStar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.07.09 23:24:00 - [66] Edited by: Havoc GunStar on 09/07/2007 23:30:37 Originally by: Cosmos Elf How is it taking away from others by splitting up the battles in a fair way? Are you saying that it's unfair for the low end ships to fight each other in a seperate area while the big boys are fighting elsewhere? What kind of military would send it's foot soldiers to fight against tanks? You're kidding right? How about... All of them? WW2 PIAT The UK/British Blackard Bomber Modern equivalent for the US (among many systems) For Israel For Canada For France and Germany among others There are literally hundreds of examples of man-portable weapons systems across all nations, designed to defeat tanks, going all the way back to the introduction of tanks to the battlefield. [img]http://home.comcast.net/~tazzc/Havoc.jpg


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.