| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hardin
Amarr
Epitoth Fleetyards
Vigilia Valeria
   |
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:54:00 -
[1]
I have to say I agree with Wrayeth and Guomindong here.
I think the proposal as it stands could potentially lead to a dramatic decline in the number and quality of fights by encouraging ganking and blobbage.
While the more PvP oriented 'small gang' corps may go to the efforts outlined here I suspect that many groups will simply fall back on the old 'safety in numbers' philosophy.
While I can see where you are coming from Jade I think you are totally misreading how the majority of people play this game.
What will happen when a pilot is ganked by 10 enemies. Will his own alliance send just 10 people to respond when they have no clear idea how many enemies are in the area? Will they assume that the 10 pilots are merely an advance guard for another fleet 2 jumps away? While there is already a tendency to blobbage I can only see that being worsened by this proposal.
Yes they can dispatch scouts to scan all the surrounding systems (which could be a very large number of systems) but that takes time, organisation and will.
We already see people on these forums complaining about nano-hac gangs and the pointlessness/effort required to engage them. Speed gangs have not resulted in more PvP (unless you count the ability to catch the odd careless NPCer as PvP)because many players cannot even be bothered to gather the required ships to combat them and this proposal could produce a similar result!
While some organisations will make the effort many more will simply blob up (or dock up) on the assumption that there are many more enemies around than there actually are. Indeed (as with the nano-hac gangs) they may simply refuse to respond at all because it all takes too much effort.
This proposal (as it stands) will from my viewpoint make EVE combat less likely than it is already. Yes we already have blobs but I think this proposal may actually make the situation worse.
I do like the whole concept of 'uncertainty and fear' that removing local could bring but I simply don't see how it will encourgage good fights.
All it will lead to is the death of careless individuals caught by surprise who will simply get ganked (as they already are). While that may be good for pirates I fail to see how its really going to help improve the frequency or quality of PvP in EVE on a larger scale.
Of course there may be ways around this but so far I have yet to be convinced...
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Hardin
Amarr
Epitoth Fleetyards
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:40:00 -
[2]
Yes it's quite easy to be 'visionary' when trying to win votes isn't it?
Lets forget about words such as pragmatic, realistic and achievable and focus on 'vision' instead. It is so much more exciting isn't it!
Recognising good ideas is fine - provided that they are actually good ideas and more importantly balanced!
We can of course all jump on existing lobbies and claim to be 'visionaries' in order to get elected but what exactly will we achieve when we present ill-thought or agenda driven proposals to CCP.
Should we all be sheep and quietly accept Jade as the all knowing EVE meister or should we point out flaws and issues in her thinking so that those ideas can be refined and improved into something that would actually work and might have a chance of being implemented by CCP? Jade should welcome this opportunity to fine tune her thinking!
But if it is a sheep you want then don't vote for me!
Hmmmm - may have to turn that into a banner 
|
Hardin
Amarr
Force Liberatrice du Quebec
Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:42:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
This is actually an entirely different issue - and something worthy of debate in its own right but I don't believe every 0.0 raider pilots nano-ships because its what they want to be flying. I strongly believe that nano-ship culture has evolved because its simply the only way to fight in the current environment of 0.0 where the defending side has all advantages, cyno jammed and jump-bridged systems and the ability to focus the entirety of the defensive blob on any incoming force.
While I don't want to detract too much from the main topic of this thread I have to disagree with you with the reason nano-ship culture evolved.
Yes hot-dropping is one of the primary causes but I disagree that this is purely down to Sov Warfare.
The fact is that some enlightened people - such as Omniscient Order - developed nano-tactics long before they became flavour of the month. Why? Because they could see that it allowed them to engage targets with minimal risk to themselves, as Goumindong has already highlighted.
The fact is that nano 'culture' had started to develop prior to the introduction of jump bridges. This was partly in response to general tendency for people to blob but more importantly became evident with the introduction of carriers and dreads and more laterly Titans.
Yes if people really want to roam 0.0 now in security and safety they are left with little option but to nano but that is not (as you seem to want to insist) purely a consequence of Sov Warfare but a consequence of people's ability to hot drop ships full stop!
The simple fact is that people who care about their 'efficiency' would still be using nanos even if jump bridges and cyno jammers went away tomorrow. In fact if it wasnt for cynojammers people would probably have to use them even more for fear of being 'titaned' in every engagement!
But that is all irrelevant anyway because I wasn't actually complaining about you or anyone else using nano's - as I have acknowledged above they are the wise choice in some situations. You were fighting a guerilla war against CVA - you were outnumbered and outgunned - I have no issue with you opting to use nanos to keep yourself safe.
The point that I was making was that while nanos may be useful in certain circumstances do not lead to more or better fights and PvP - in fact quite the opposite...and that is how I see a basic removal of local turning out (unless it is balanced properly).
By all means use the opportunity to smack about CVA blobs again and to bang on about your Sov Warfare hobby horse but please don't accuse me of not seeing the bigger picture when everything you write quite clearly screams "this is my and my corps agenda - sod game balance"
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Hardin
Amarr
Force Liberatrice du Quebec
Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 22:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
But don't be silly and accuse me of bias when you're own is very evident on the subject too. Its different styles of play and both need representation.
I have from the very start of this process made it quite clear that I want the CSM to represent the multiplicity of game styles available to the players of EVE.
However where I (seemingly) differ from you Jade is that I am not focused on pushing a corp or alliance agenda.
Take sov warfare: I have already acknowledged that changes have to be made to create more opportunities for the attacker and where I do disagree with your proposal and suggestions I do so not because I am part of a sov holding alliance, or because the proposal is coming from you, but because I genuinely feel that some of the proposed changes are unbalanced and will not be in EVE's long term interests.
Similarly, on the issue of local, I can see why some people are such advocates for its removal. However, I also see very good reasons why the removal of local would actually diminish (rather than increase) the likelihood of enjoyable PvP.
Obviously we will have to agree to disagree sometimes but we also have to be able to compromise and adapt our standpoints based upon the input we receive from all the players of EVE and not just those that reflect the interests of our own particular corps.
Specifically and quickly on local removal:
1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it.
2) Tedium - Making things harder is not in itself wrong. I am sure there are many vets who long for a really hardcore EVE. The problem is there is a fine line between challenging and tedious. Make life too difficult and you run the risk of driving people out of the game. And while we are at it lets just make EVE that little bit more unpleasant and daunting for people joining the game, after all its not like they have enough to get to grips with already.
3) Solo play - The removal of local will pretty much eliminate solo play in 0.0. That's fine if you believe that 0.0 should be a mercilessly hostile unforgiving place but not so fine if you believe in developing economies and creating empires in 0.0. It's not like we should be doing anything that would encourage people to leave Empire anyway!
While those are my major concerns there are also big issues around login traps. Jump scout in, scan gate, one enemy in local, move scout on, jump fleet in, **** there's now 50 people on the gate - no warning whatsoever
Also undocking. No local - no idea who is in the system as you can't scan. Okay let's put windows on the station - erm what if they are all in cloakers? Okay lets introduce in station scanners - erm what if they are all in cloakers?
As it stands it just seems way too imbalanced and impractical to me. Maybe there are ways around some of the issues I have outlined. Maybe I am just being too 'carebear' for my own good but I honestly think that the removal of local without an adeqaute alternative would severely damage the playing experience for the vast majority of players!
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Hardin
Amarr
Force Liberatrice du Quebec
Lonetrek Industrial Mining Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 23:10:00 -
[5]
Fair enough
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
| |
|