| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hait
   |
Posted - 2008.03.07 02:59:00 -
[1]
It is clear that eve cannot support the fleet fights we all dream of.
Instead of *****ing at the devs to invent quantum computing how about a code of coduct for fights.. a gentlemans agreement.
Bring your best 50, and I''ll bring mine kinda thing.
But how can this be inforced? How can you trust your mortal (current) enemy to play by the rules?
Well what happened to the guy that turned around at the count of 8 and shot his foe in the back? - yeah he had to pay off everyone to say it was a fair fight but yet somehow the news would leak out.
Forever branded a cheater no one would duel - if he started something he would first be mocked and if contiued in the same vein - ganked. The world is better off without him.
So ... here's the situation, you have a 50 man raiding gang in your space - how many should you bring to the fight?
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
SiKong Ma
Renegade Circus Midgets
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:04:00 -
[2]
So Bad Alliance cheated, Good Alliances gang up against bad alliance... and back to square one of huge capital fleets being formed by Good Alliances to gank Bad Alliance.
Don't think it'll work without dev intervention which have a high chance of not happening.
"Master, to be or not to be... what's the next phrase?"
"That is the question"
"But that's my question!"
"zzzz... AFK" |
Ungdall
Minmatar
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:04:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ungdall on 07/03/2008 03:04:44
This is brilliant! I hail you as the prophet for a new era of EVE wars.
edit; oh wait, it's not, and you're an idiot.
|
Fader Bane
Black Knight Buccaneers
Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:08:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Hait
It is clear that eve cannot support the fleet fights we all dream of.
Instead of *****ing at the devs to invent quantum computing how about a code of coduct for fights.. a gentlemans agreement.
Bring your best 50, and I''ll bring mine kinda thing.
But how can this be inforced? How can you trust your mortal (current) enemy to play by the rules?
Well what happened to the guy that turned around at the count of 8 and shot his foe in the back? - yeah he had to pay off everyone to say it was a fair fight but yet somehow the news would leak out.
Forever branded a cheater no one would duel - if he started something he would first be mocked and if contiued in the same vein - ganked. The world is better off without him.
So ... here's the situation, you have a 50 man raiding gang in your space - how many should you bring to the fight?
google the "prisoner's dilemma"
If one can take the advantage, why not do it? you say they would be branded a cheater however he would be a cheater with more space.
________________________________________
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:24:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Malcanis on 07/03/2008 03:31:07
Originally by: Fader Bane
Originally by: Hait
It is clear that eve cannot support the fleet fights we all dream of.
Instead of *****ing at the devs to invent quantum computing how about a code of coduct for fights.. a gentlemans agreement.
Bring your best 50, and I''ll bring mine kinda thing.
But how can this be inforced? How can you trust your mortal (current) enemy to play by the rules?
Well what happened to the guy that turned around at the count of 8 and shot his foe in the back? - yeah he had to pay off everyone to say it was a fair fight but yet somehow the news would leak out.
Forever branded a cheater no one would duel - if he started something he would first be mocked and if contiued in the same vein - ganked. The world is better off without him.
So ... here's the situation, you have a 50 man raiding gang in your space - how many should you bring to the fight?
google the "prisoner's dilemma"
If one can take the advantage, why not do it? you say they would be branded a cheater however he would be a cheater with more space.
Yeah at the end of the day this reduces to "Knightly combat": elite noblemen squaring off while the spear carriers mostly watch.
Eh, doesn't sound all that much less fun than spear carriers waiting 45 mins to load and waking up in station. Could work with entities you have POS napped. It's not reasonable to expect an alliance to not bring everything they can cram in to gang to defend their sovereignty though.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:26:00 -
[6]
This idea is kinda like the old, often rehashed idea of “instead of fighting real wars, why don’t we just fight a simulated war and whoever wins gets to dictate terms to the loser” the problem with that idea is that it would never work.
People, both in real life and Eve, don’t fight to settle a disagreement, they fight for resources, for land, for control, to weaken, demoralise and destroy their enemy, if your not doing any of that, then your not really fighting and nothing is lost or gained, nor is there any reason for one side to capitulate to the other, short of mutually assured destruction if one side fails to live up to the agreement.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Frug
Repo Industries
R.E.P.O.
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:33:00 -
[7]
You bring your 50 to defend your space and I'll totally just bring 50 of my own. Really. I promise.
Moron.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:33:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Alski
This idea is kinda like the old, often rehashed idea of ôinstead of fighting real wars, why donÆt we just fight a simulated war and whoever wins gets to dictate terms to the loserö the problem with that idea is that it would never work.
People, both in real life and Eve, donÆt fight to settle a disagreement, they fight for resources, for land, for control, to weaken, demoralise and destroy their enemy, if your not doing any of that, then your not really fighting and nothing is lost or gained, nor is there any reason for one side to capitulate to the other, short of mutually assured destruction if one side fails to live up to the agreement.
Actually, I'd say that a relatively large amount of combat in EvE is for the sake of the fight. I reckon that quite a few people would love to have more 20v20 rather than 200v200 if they could be reasonably sure the other side would respect it.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 03:36:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Khatred on 07/03/2008 03:42:56
Originally by: Malcanis
Actually, I'd say that a relatively large amount of combat in EvE is for the sake of the fight. I reckon that quite a few people would love to have more 20v20 rather than 200v200 if they could be reasonably sure the other side would respect it.
Looks like I certainly roamed the wrong 0.0 regions then, nobody fighted for the sake of the fight, was usualy more like "let's blob them, make them go away so we can carebear in peace again.". Because we all know, there are no carebears in 0.0 .
EDIT: As for the OP: Lol, not in this game. Probably not in any PvP game unless it has implemented mechanics like WoW's battlegrounds but then again, WoW isn't really a PvP game.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 04:50:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Khatred
Edited by: Khatred on 07/03/2008 03:42:56
Originally by: Malcanis
Actually, I'd say that a relatively large amount of combat in EvE is for the sake of the fight. I reckon that quite a few people would love to have more 20v20 rather than 200v200 if they could be reasonably sure the other side would respect it.
Looks like I certainly roamed the wrong 0.0 regions then, nobody fighted for the sake of the fight, was usualy more like "let's blob them, make them go away so we can carebear in peace again.". Because we all know, there are no carebears in 0.0 .
EDIT: As for the OP: Lol, not in this game. Probably not in any PvP game unless it has implemented mechanics like WoW's battlegrounds but then again, WoW isn't really a PvP game.
Yeah I know man, as said above, Prisoners Dilemma and all that.
join a small alliance that mostly fights other small alliances, I guess.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Military Industrial Research
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 06:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Hait
Forever branded a cheater no one would duel - if he started something he would first be mocked and if contiued in the same vein - ganked. The world is better off without him.
This is a war game. There are no duels in Eve.
|
Cottage Pie
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 06:49:00 -
[12]
no honour tbqfh
|
Nasta443
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 07:06:00 -
[13]
I can see RA agreeing to that.
I can also see them breaking it like the russian alliance they are. But then in the same boat would be goons and bob so...
|
Gorefacer
Caldari
Resurrection
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 09:26:00 -
[14]
If after paying $15/mo to play a PVP centric game, I was told by my own side to stay in system while they go fight because I'm not one of the 50 "chosen", I'd leave that corp/alliance then and there.
As it is, people have the choice of joining the large laggy fleet battles OR pursuing other targets in less crowded areas. More choice is good, limiting choice is bad, for a "sandbox" styled game at least.
Also there is no such thing as a "blob". Sometimes there are equal numbers of pilots for each side in systems, usually there isn't. You bring as many pilots are willing to come because purposely leaving them home would be ****ty.
Having more pilots in an engagement than an enemy is just the way it works out sometimes. It's a matter of perspective, do I "blob" every system I'm alone in? The notion is ridiculous.
Almost no combat objective is harder to attain by bring another ship, as long as this EVE axiom exists people will always bring all they can, and that's exactly how it should be in this type of game. Instanced combat can be regulated and made to be more "fair", if that is what we wanted we wouldn't be playing EVE.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Sarakiel
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 09:27:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Sarakiel on 07/03/2008 09:31:33
Originally by: Fader Bane
google the "prisoner's dilemma"
If one can take the advantage, why not do it? you say they would be branded a cheater however he would be a cheater with more space.
The most effective prisoner's dilemma strategy varies with the variables but most often has been proven to be the one where you copy your opponents/co-operators last move.
EDIT: This idea will never happen though, but technically if you apply games theory to EvE and analyse ALL the variables of past player interaction (just a bit too much for the sane human being) you might be able to make a decision on whether to operate this way or not
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar
Damage over Time
Angels Of Discord
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 09:53:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sarakiel
Edited by: Sarakiel on 07/03/2008 09:31:33
Originally by: Fader Bane
google the "prisoner's dilemma"
If one can take the advantage, why not do it? you say they would be branded a cheater however he would be a cheater with more space.
The most effective prisoner's dilemma strategy varies with the variables but most often has been proven to be the one where you copy your opponents/co-operators last move.
You're confusing the Prisoner's Dilemma with the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. In the Prisoner's Dilemma there's just one encounter and defecting is the best move. The strategy you mention (Tit for Tat) works in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, but only if the total number of interactions is unknown.
That said, it would probably be better to compare Eve to the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma than to a one-off Prisoner's Dilemma.
Skills Explained |
Roxanna Kell
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 10:31:00 -
[17]
What gentleman? EVE is set why too far in the future. There is no such thing in 2008 anyhow. People gang on loners and still their money. and you expect the opposite to be done in a game? Been more of an observor to human pshycology, and youd soon firgure out you are asking for the impossible.
Quote:
You are what you are, fool
|
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 11:38:00 -
[18]
In my opinion its a larger chance that there will be arranged a bikini contest on the south-pole and out in the snow, with its own icecream stand - then seeing a form of "code of conduct" in EVE...
Originally by: CCP Whisper
I got your ambulation right here... <walks off to get more wine>
|
Sarakiel
|
Posted - 2008.03.07 11:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Roxanna Kell
What gentleman? EVE is set why too far in the future. There is no such thing in 2008 anyhow. People gang on loners and still their money. and you expect the opposite to be done in a game? Been more of an observor to human pshycology, and youd soon firgure out you are asking for the impossible.
Human psychology is hardly a good indicator of EvE at all. Since the beginning of civilisation humans have been forming into communities and establishing their code of conduct towards other communities.
The only form of warfare that has proven to be rule free is guerilla warfare, but in reality that never results in clear cut boundaries or any kind of conquest.
War is based around gentlemen's agreements. Before trench warfare it was a little more organised where leaders agreed to meet for battle at a certain time, but even the short-lived change to trench warfare still maintained the traditional style of warfare. Theres the enemy, were on one side there on the other and were going to push them back by taking strategic points. Nowadays it still follows the same rules, may seem less organised but in principle present day warfare is far more organised than what your suggesting.
EvE wars follow the same pattern, the only suggestion this player is making requires alliances to come up with a 'rules of war' that you have to follow. Your right though this won't be happening any time soon, and suggesting it on the forums isnt going to make any progress towards the idea becoming a reality.
Maybe in 5 years we'll see this as a reality and there'll be a code of conduct that if you don't follow other established alliances will gang up on you for your actions, but thats going to take alot more people in 0.0 space to create more fixed borders.
Right now your right though EvE is far more like the wild west, but human psychology does not dictate what your suggesting at all. Humans form groups and establish their place in relation to other groups. Humans like security and the rules often base themselves around this.
To the guy that responded to my prisoner's dilemma comment, your right i was talking from an iterated perspective and not an individual instance, and yea thats why it would take a massive analysis of EvE player action statistics to come up with an adequate strategy, and in reality currently the better strategy i'd be willing to guess is defect every time.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |