| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
22
   |
Posted - 2012.02.01 16:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Not fighting would be more effective than fighting .... I do not think your idea is gonna work here ;-)
Lets just kill amarr. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 13:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Also Caldari and Amarr are just wrong. They should surrender. Then we can all move on to concerning every thing else. From an RP perspective, we both know that the Caldari would rather go bankrupt and the Amarr would rather commit heresy than surrender to their respective enemies.
We can work on that, I have no problem with Caldari going bankrupt. And Amarr heresy sounds like something possitive anyway ... we should work on that. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 13:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Liberty Eternal wrote:Deen Wispa wrote:I'm surprised you don't know the answer. But yes. Gallente outnumbers Caldari greatly at the moment. Minmatar and Amarr tend to be equal. I wasn't certain if he was alluding to something else [maybe that it is better not to fight at all, than to negotiate with an enemy].
If you base your conclusions on game theory than yes, no fight is better than negotiate how to best waste resources with an enemy, who becomes than anyway a partner and not an real enemy.
Furthermore cooperative behavior leads to more resources for all, but sociopathic behavior will not only decrease your own resources, but will decrease resources of your enemys even more. So if we are locking from a war perspective on this, its better not to cooperate but instead actually try to gain significant advantages over the enemy militia. Will this lead to less battles? Sure, but actually the "goal" in faction warfare is not to fight as much as you can, but actually to fight not anymore because you secured all resources for your own militia / faction.
What you are trying to achieve is to change faction warfare to something all do enjoy more, without changing the game mechanics. It is a honorable try, but why not just use red vs blue for this? If you are locking for pre-arranged battles, I am pretty sure red vs blue can offer this to you. |
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:37:00 -
[4] - Quote
Damar Rocarion wrote:Tenris Anis wrote:Furthermore cooperative behavior leads to more resources for all, but sociopathic behavior will not only decrease your own resources, but will decrease resources of your enemys even more. Wait a moment. Are you actually saying that people in Eve (in every war theater) should not, rightly I might add, consider their opponents as sub-human pieces of s..t and give them some measure of respect? You are playing altogether wrong game here....
No, not at all? Why do you think I would say that? I stated that sociopathic behavior while diminishing your own resources will diminish resources of all other "players" even more. Which is beneficial to our own standing compared to others. And you want to be better than others, right? If you want to respect your victims, you are still free to do. Respect is a unrelated matter.
Though I have to admit, cooperative behavior within your alliances will yield better results than betraying them ever so often ;-)
|
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 00:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Outz Xacto wrote:[quote=Ehn Roh]
Basically this, your example of the fps scenario describes much better what I was going for before.
As to the stipend... I would foresee many cloaked undocked ships sitting about :P
Not if you base this on actually being part in kills. A few millions per week for staying constant in militia is not game breaking and will help starters. A few billion per month for the best contributors to achieve goals in faction warfare can not be gained with out actually doing something. The real exploit in such kind of systems is that enemies start to trade to abuse the system. Because you can count on it, if there is something to exploit with cooperative behavior it will be done.
|
| |
|