|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
   |
Posted - 2008.03.10 09:56:00 -
[1]
I thought you'd be too pr0 here to click the wrong button  
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 10:44:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: Rudi Storm
So lets see. DMC had both Cyno jammers and Titans and lost its space in a few days. Guess it all depends on the people in the Alliance itself more then on the tools.
If Titans would really be that deadly as you mention DMC would still be there...
I guess some things even a titan can't save And small alliances can still be overrun I guess. But if you look at the likes of RA/MM/BoB, and I bet that you could add quite a few more alliances to that if they all have 10+ titans. Which I expect will happen before the end of 2008 for several alliances at least.
Maybe a better option would be to make alliances actually fight alone..
I dont see the problem with strong alliances being able to defend an area.. As everyone has seen when that area is too big, even the strongest alliance (yes, i mean BOB) pulls back.. Strong alliances have always been able to defend themselves, why should this suddenly need to change?
The coaltion object to the fact that simply massively blobing someone doesnt automatically mean they win.. i think that is GOOD design..
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 11:23:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
How would you make alliances fight alone? Practically, I see no way how to achieve such a thing, even theoretically, without creating huge loopholes to be exploited. And even if it were, wouldn't it just lead to even bigger blocs. I'd imagine a big round of mergers until we only had 3 or 4 entities left if you can't bring any allies.
I'd remove alliances abilities to set standings.. ofc they can work together "seperately" but it would make group fleets more difficult.. making caps & super caps more vulnerable in weaker alliances.. this will result in bloated larger alliances and eventually internal explosions.. As ASCN discovered, bloated alliances still dont automatically fair well against smaller alliances.. (not meant as a flame, but genuine example)
(there are other parts ofc, but this isnt game dev forums, and most the ppl reading this arent worth explaining more too)
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 13:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: KIATolon
Without teamwork and politics, there would be only 1 option in EVE, and that's the cynojammer/supercap. For me I think the recent conflict has been a good test to see how well teamwork and politics could be at causing the self-proclaimed best alliance in eve being over-run by pilots. I for one support this as the game would be totally rubbish if all we needed to do was to have a cyno jammer and 4 pilots able to defend against an almost infinite number of players.
"teamwork and politics" has limited effectiveness, as does "cynojammer/supercap"..
As you have said before, the coalition has taken cynojammed system before, so they arent impossible to take.. what most of the complaints are actually indirectly aimed at, is that the limits of "teamwork and politics" are being reached..
What the coalition wants is that numbers can be used to wipe out anyone.. even though it isnt good game design..
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 14:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Scavok
Allowing 2 people to defeat an otherwise superior and better organized fleet is good game design?
I would suggest, defeat would mean the fleet wasnt:
a) superior
b) better organised
I love the exaggerated arguements you get on forums
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 14:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Scavok
Ok, so lets take your attempts on the paxton jammer. You lost huge battleship fleets and failed to take it down over multiple attempts until you gave up and spammed the system. One failed attempt was even after you had largely destroyed their fleet on a gate and only left them with POS gunners and some suicide tacklers. I would say the BoB fleet was clearly superior and better organized than paxton/CVA's given they were pretty much massacred on the gate with odds that weren't bad.
Now imagine if they had 2 titans at the POS ready to DD. Obviously just trying to take on a faction POS is hard enough considering that's all they needed. When you raise the possibility of losing your entire fleet instantly when coming on grid, or not being able to warp out when you see the DD animation due to the lag generated from shooting a jammer or titan, the game becomes nothing more than a joke.
Ok, now imagine 4 titans. If you somehow **** up with the first 2, you still have another try right away. 6 titans? 8 titans? Oh boy fun
No one said eve should be easy, nor did they say eve should be like a FPS where you can instantly wipe out an enemy.. Players complained when it was station ping pong, now they are complaining because 0.0 has a certain degree of stability.. As Suas so kindly points out, the coalition has taken such systems before.. when BOB certainly had more than 2 titans.. so it isnt impossible it just isnt easy..
I wont say I particularly like the sovereignty system atm, but as you pointed out, there are also ways around it..
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.10 15:10:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Scavok
Good thing this is a game and not a political system, where stuff that is clearly broken can easily be fixed and you don't have to live with it just because it's the way it is.
I think your still struggling with the "clearly broken" part.. sofar you've got to: "it's not easy, i'll cry on the forums alot and hope it's changed"
There is very few alliances i would suggest that it is next to impossible to take systems off when they put their minds to defending them.. and tbh i dont see a problem with the strongest alliances being able to defend themselves.. The number of systems they can defend is still limited..
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
thoth foc
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 14:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: KIATolon
Originally by: welsh wizard
Alot more space would help with the titan thing.
I actually disagree with this, although I think I'm on my own.
Atm the dominating alliances have way too much space, and so end up with a huge income from moons (and I think it's unbalanced), which would be fixed if you removed a handful of regions. I cant speak for the North but the south is definitely underpopulated.
I half agree and half disagree..
It may or maynot actually be underpopulated, but it's definately under used.. few ppl NPC or mine in 0.0 as running lvl 4 missions is generally safer..
There are lots of other factors on control of space.. but i would say the main 1 is standings.. it's not surprising that the fewer ppl, that are attacking you, the more space you can control.. the large alliances commonly just nap up with those around them..
_________________________
xMenta (DSMA)
xBOS (CA)
ATUK (.5.)
DICE (BOB)
xElcyion Lacar
|
|
|
| |
|