| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Brutor Shaun
   |
Posted - 2007.08.13 15:55:00 -
[1]
Get rid of alliances!
Break the player base up into just corps and nothing bigger, and make the battles more compact. Corps fighting over systems rather than alliances fighting over regions.
If eve is truly a PvP game, make it that, rather than the giant game of Risk that it has become. My army's bigger than your army, we'll take that system, get more members, rinse and repeat.
How long until 1 alliance becomes big enough to own all of 0.0? Quite a while, but eventually....?
Smaller groups = smaller fleets = less lag = less whining.
I'm ready
Bookmark Idea - My skills
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 15:58:00 -
[2]
ôBreak the player base up into just corps and nothing bigger, and make the battles more compact. Corps fighting over systems rather than alliances fighting over regions.ö
Just how do you do that? All you will get are corps working together as an alliance.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 15:59:00 -
[3]
It will make organizing large battles a larger pain in the ass, but won't stop them.
------------
Whiners - Unite!
Tarminic - 25 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
Xtreem
Gallente
Naughty 40
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:00:00 -
[4]
/me flames u to death as per topic
|
Brutor Shaun
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:03:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Pottsey
ôBreak the player base up into just corps and nothing bigger, and make the battles more compact. Corps fighting over systems rather than alliances fighting over regions.ö
Just how do you do that? All you will get are corps working together as an alliance.
They won't have the organisation capabilities that alliances currently have. Yes, there will be alliances, but they will be much smaller.
Bookmark Idea - My skills
|
Larg Kellein
Caldari
GTE Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:04:00 -
[6]
This is before my time, but from what I gather from the "back in the day" threads that regularly pop up, before there was an alliance mechanic in the game, players already banded together in slightly more informal alliances anyway, sharing standings etc. So I doubt your suggestion would really do anything other than require more paperwork from already overburdened alliance leaders.
Originally by: Roy Batty68
My software has wronged me!!! And it's immediately "sorry". Well, ok then. I suppose I'm not so upset at my software if it appologizes.
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:08:00 -
[7]
ôThey won't have the organisation capabilities that alliances currently have. Yes, there will be alliances, but they will be much smaller.ö
Most organisation takes place out of game over chat and voice programs. Just look at how players group up before allianceÆs where added and you will see taking away allianceÆs wont change much.
Passive shield tanking guide click here |
Zombie Network
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:09:00 -
[8]
If you knew that your idea was stupid and would get you flamed, then why did you post it?
PS: Your idea is stupid <insert flame here>
|
Haffrage
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:11:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Brutor Shaun
Originally by: Pottsey
ôBreak the player base up into just corps and nothing bigger, and make the battles more compact. Corps fighting over systems rather than alliances fighting over regions.ö
Just how do you do that? All you will get are corps working together as an alliance.
They won't have the organisation capabilities that alliances currently have. Yes, there will be alliances, but they will be much smaller.
You realize that alliances as we have them now only exist because players grouped together and created unofficial "alliances" long, long ago...right? And that this entire idea would end up having even MORE people to blob together, and standings/friendly fire issues would become far more common?
Tech 2 Tier 2 Battlecruisers | Eve GUI Tweaks |
slothe
Caldari
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:12:00 -
[10]
not a stupid idea, but alliances would still exist as they did before.
the only difference would be more friendly fire incidents due to standings not being ypdated / applied.
|
Jago Kain
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:18:00 -
[11]
Originally by: slothe
not a stupid idea, but alliances would still exist as they did before.
the only difference would be more friendly fire incidents due to standings not being ypdated / applied.
As a Brit who regularly flies with Americans in EVE, I have to say I'm more than a little worried about this idea.
|
Brutor Shaun
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zombie Network
If you knew that your idea was stupid and would get you flamed, then why did you post it?
PS: Your idea is stupid <insert flame here>
Did I say "I know this is stupid idea"? No, I didn't. I just knew it would get flamed....and in your case trolled.
Bookmark Idea - My skills
|
Nardon
Gallente
Eggs'n Roids
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:27:00 -
[13]
I think you mistook cause and action. Larger groups aren't because of the availability of alliances but alliances allow for the organisation of larger groups. So the only thing your idea would achieve is scratching logistic tools used for organisation of larger groups. Which would be a pita considering the already tiresome interface of EvE. :P
I believe the reason for larger groups is because people aren't interested in having good fights but are interested in winning only. And since mass is giving you a large advantage it's something alot of people strive for. And that's something you can't change given the nature of the game.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:28:00 -
[14]
First off, don't we already have the needed skills to have multi-thousand user corporations in place ?
And am I completely mistaken to claim at least one such corp already exists ?
Would you "undo" the existance of those skills, and reduce the maxcap of users in a corp to mere hundreds then ?
How much would a corp be, maximum ? 100 people ? 50 people ? And on what grounds will you decide how to split them up, and who gets what ?
Imposing arbitrary limits of any kind won't "solve the blob". It would just make the blob less structured, but things won't really change.
Do you want to fight lag ?
Either make it so that large battles aren't the norm, make it so that superior numbers and similar classes of ships don't almost automatically mean victory... or embrace the fact you can't change that fact, and rework fleet combat systems accordingly, to generate a lot less lag as now with some additional benefits, in exchange for some "lack of freedom" (freedom to move one's ship freely, for instance, by introducing formation flight).
How can larger-numbers battles become less demanding ?
For starters, you could give pilots new tools that affect fleet engagement "commitment" levels.
For instance, area-of-effect warp jammer modules (think ECM burst meets scrambler), warp uncertainty mobile field projectors (cause targets to randomly mis-warp withing their area of effect instead of intended location, small T1 would be 50-ish km , large T2 one up to 250km radius), even go as far as "interdictor modules" that prevent warping OUT from anywhere on the GRID (most advisable as "siege-like modules"), which used in conjunction with the new mobile "uncertainty" fields would make for a pretty devastating defense, UNLESS maybe the enemy had cloaks fited.
You might also want to finally introduce the ability to "warp cloaked" for all ships (at a much higher "cost"), the ability to automatically cloak when jumping in for most ships too... and last but not least, ability to SEE "friendly" (gang/fleet) cloaked ships and NOT be decloaked by proximity to THEM.
You'd need then anti-cloak pulses, those that already exist in-game as database items only (15-km radius, smart-bomb like, think "sonar pulse" with limited range), which would encourage small, fast picket ships in gatecamps and defence positions.
You might also want to increase the POSSIBLE "jump in" radius around gates to a higher value, as high as (why not) 50 or even 100 km away from gate (as opposed to the traditional 15km).
These are but several ideas, some might not work well, some might even work against their intended purpose, but I bet you can build on it and get something concocted.
The alternative is just take it as usual, and just blob more as the others, then hope you have either more patience or luck as "the other guys".
_
Complaint vs whine | Char creation guide | Stacknerfs explained |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 16:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Akita T
Either make it so that large battles aren't the norm, make it so that superior numbers and similar classes of ships don't almost automatically mean victory... or embrace the fact you can't change that fact, and rework fleet combat systems accordingly, to generate a lot less lag as now with some additional benefits, in exchange for some "lack of freedom" (freedom to move one's ship freely, for instance, by introducing formation flight).
Indeed. 
Quote:
warp uncertainty mobile field projectors (cause targets to randomly mis-warp withing their area of effect instead of intended location, small T1 would be 50-ish km , large T2 one up to 250km radius)
I actually really like this idea. In addition to providing a new, interesting form of navigational ECM it could work take a few chunks out of grid loading time too.
------------
Whiners - Unite!
Tarminic - 25 Million SP in Forum Warfare. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |