| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.08.03 17:39:00 -
[181]
|
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:06:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Kelsin on 03/08/2008 18:15:01
 Originally by: Goatface Man
One single time zone alliance attacks another single (but different) time zone alliance during their prime time, sending in small gangs to capture 5-10 of their stargates. The gates come out of their reinforced mode in the defenders prime, all at the same time. There ensues a desperate rush to make something happen in a single 5 minute window[...]
[...]one of two things happens:
The defenders choose to split their fleet and try to reclaim all the gates. The attackers don't, in the knowledge their combined fleet in this time will mash any of the splinters. They annihilate a small group and claim a stargate. The rest are reclaimed but this is of no real consequence, this entire affair has only taken about 30 minutes out of the day.
Option two: The Defenders bunch a majority of their fleet, definitely saving one or two specific stargates, but potentially losing the rest[...]
Whatever happens, once this is all over, the gates have been claimed and the attackers have buggered off again, the defenders in their prime reclaim those gates they lost and probably a few of the attacker's for good measure. The whole cycle then repeats in the attackers prime, and each side trades a few stargates every day[...]
Right. And as the attackers knock out single stargates here and there, they open the door for attacks on Cynojammer Arrays because the Array invulnerability is lost when one of the Stargates in that system is captured by the Attacker and this moves the battle to fleets within individual systems, which in turn opens the door for attacks on POS within systems that have their Jammer Arrays knocked out.
That seems to work pretty well. What are the flaws?
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:15:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Pnuka on 03/08/2008 18:16:01
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:16:00 -
[184]
Idea was rejected in the CSM meeting. 
|
Nevada Tan
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:23:00 -
[185]
Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
I have done a bad thing. |
Telender
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:24:00 -
[186]
Sanity prevailed.
|
Batlovod
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:26:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Telender
Sanity prevailed.
|
Pnuka
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:26:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Nevada Tan
Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes.
Not gonna learn about 0.0 in Crielere Star Fraction.
|
Delrik Johanian
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:28:00 -
[189]
no guys I participated in faction warfare I think I know a enough about 0.0 and these changes were neccesary
|
RDevz
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:40:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Nevada Tan
Oh dear, that means Star Fraction will remain as irrelevant, Empire-hugging wannabes.
That was always going to happen, even if this change had been voted in.
|
|
|
Goatface Man
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 18:44:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Kelsin
Right. And as the attackers knock out single stargates here and there, they open the door for attacks on Cynojammer Arrays because the Array invulnerability is lost when one of the Stargates in that system is captured by the Attacker and this moves the battle to fleets within individual systems, which in turn opens the door for attacks on POS within systems that have their Jammer Arrays knocked out.
That seems to work pretty well. What are the flaws?
The flaw is that the cynojammer would be better protected than it is now.
|
namesarehard
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:30:00 -
[192]
All I see in this thread is The Star Fraction (and empire corp) wanting to get into 0.0 without having to do any work. These idea's are awful and no one with any sanity or understanding of 0.0 should support it. If you want to get into 0.0 then work for it like everyone else out here had to. Don't just change the game around to fit what you want and screw everyone else over.
|
Tress Macneille
Eight year old girls
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 19:51:00 -
[193]
purest strain ownage
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:04:00 -
[194]
Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission.
I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM.
I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty.
Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Toolbert
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:18:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Toolbert on 03/08/2008 20:18:44
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission.
I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM.
I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty.
Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future.
First we need to come up with an agreement on what the problems with 0.0 even are. If you actually lived in 0.0 you would understand that its not that simple and writing up even a list of problems that aren't going to cause a ton of debate is a huge undertaking.
Then we need the proposition to come from people who actually live in 0.0. Incase you didn't notice, this whole thing was shot down by a lot of people because I mean an empire corp telling us whats wrong with 0.0? You've got to be kidding.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:21:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission.
I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM.
I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty.
Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future.
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Kelsin
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 20:47:00 -
[197]
Ah well, thanks for the input Toman and to all who gave constructive criticism.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:03:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Was rejected at the CSM meeting. There were some calls for a generalized "change to sovereignty" issue to be re-submitted but since we already did that first time round for the Iceland agenda its probably time to drop the aspiration for formal CSM submission.
I think its unlikely we'll see any significant proposed change to 0.0 warfare pass through the current composition of the CSM.
I would encourage Kelsin and other commentators to keep working on the proposal though and consider submitting it to CCP directly since it is a very good proposal and definitely deserves to be seen by the teams looking at 0.0 sovereignty.
Sorry it failed chaps. Hopefully we'll have better luck in the future.
It didn't fail because of the composition of the CSM. It failed because you couldn't get your coalition to show up for the meeting, or alternatively because you put the issue on the agenda without making sure that your coalition would be present to support it. If Dierdra, LaVista, and Serenity had been present it probably would have passed; hell, Dierdra voted to support on the first page of the thread. Basically it failed because you are inept and clumsy and do not know how to use your chairman powers to your advantage.
I'm glad that you've given up on putting forward proposals to revamp the system though, because it's a complete waste of time for anyone involved. For the people who actually live in 0.0 to even reach a consensus on what the problems are would take weeks of work. Then weeks of additional work reaching a consensus on the solution. And then the issue would have to be discussed with CCP. Then they'd have to discuss it internally, and then the solutions would actually have to be developed, tested, and deployed. All in all no results from the effort would probably be seen for over a year (because CCP has plenty else going on besides this issue), and by that time a new CSM would have handed off an entirely different proposal. And god only knows what else would happen in the game over that time; lag could be solved for all we know.
Issues this big are nothing more than opportunities for fun theorycrafting and to build castles in the air. By the time any 'visionary' proposal issued by the CSM can become reality, there will be a better game out there to play anyway.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:05:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Kelsin
Ah well, thanks for the input Toman and to all who gave constructive criticism.
np. Gave me something to do while waiting on my shit to compile. Coming up with the proposal was more fun than playing the results of it would have been.
|
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:07:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
|
|
Josemite
SXyCreW
CODE RED ALLIANCE
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:15:00 -
[201]
|
facialimpediment
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:33:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Can we impeach you? |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:45:00 -
[203]
Originally by: facialimpediment
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Can we impeach you?
Thats one of those things you weren't very good at
Star Fraction | Dare to Dream!
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:14:00 -
[204]
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 03/08/2008 22:15:41
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
The idea was bad. It was a horrible HORRIBLE idea. Someone not agreeing with you or yours doesn't always insinuate dogmatic response or some grand conspiracy. Sometimes you're just wrong. Happens to the best of us.
Simply because a discussion doesn't go your way does not mean it's not fruitful. I believe that there are ways we can look at the 0.0 issue holistically, I just don't think the proposed solution was a good one. A majority agreed.
The solutions to the issues of 0.0 are not to change 0.0 into factional warfare or make it so that 15 dudes can take down the sov of thousands. These solutions and the responses from some in the meeting greatly underestimate the amount of work and effort required to hold space today. It's been quite trivialized to be frank. It's no fault of the people doing so. It's just ignorance.
I'll repeat it again because it bears worth repeating. There is no ENTITLEMENT to 0.0. It is not anyone's right. It takes a GREAT deal of work and effort to take and hold space and most are simply not up to the task. That is NOT a bad thing. You already have factional warfare with control points in the game. If that excites you nothing is stopping you from playing there.
To be honest, in the meetings we've had a lot of the talk about "blobbing" and "multiple objectives" exist today. Small gang work exists today and believe it or not *gasp* it happens every day in 0.0! Eve is a sandbox and it is YOU who are limiting yourself. Not the mechanics. There's a lot that could be changed but I think what bears looking into is what makes the barrier of entry into 0.0 so high? *hint* It's not stargate tag. It's logistics. It's management. It's leadership. It's will and effort. Two of those can be made easier and less painful via mechanics. The other 3 are nobody's fault but your own.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:24:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Have you considered the possibility that the reason this was rejected was that the idea itself was horrible?
Adding a layer of boredom on top of another layer of boredom isn't an improvement!!!! If your corpie is so brilliant, why don't you have him think up something that'll encourage PvP instead of PvE (which is all structure shooting really is...).
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:49:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: facialimpediment
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Well that's an awfully negative way of looking at it. You'd think CCP would set up some method of receiving proposals such as this. A COUNCIL perhaps?
To be honest, the current CSM IS good at some things, I think we've had some excellent small issues and such. But I do get the sense we won't be able to come to consensus on any significant change to 0.0 sovereignty because it simply treads on too many toes and too many entrenched interests. I didn't feel we had a very fruitful discussion today over these sovereignty changes because it was too much dogma and too little actual flexibility or objectivity. I guess 0.0 sovereignty is one of those areas that CCP will need to look at independently of organized player feedback in the future and until then we can concentrate on smaller issues we can find common ground on.
End of the day the CSM wasn't introduced to be the be all and end all of player/CCP communication and if we find areas where we cannot function correctly then we should just be wise enough to leave well alone and get on with the stuff we can do well. My 2cents anyways.
Can we impeach you?
Thats one of those things you weren't very good at
That's one of those things that wasn't an option.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Pherusa Plumosa
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 01:34:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Eve is a sandbox and it is YOU who are limiting yourself. Not the mechanics.
ME? *coughcough points at hamsters*
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
There's a lot that could be changed but I think what bears looking into is what makes the barrier of entry into 0.0 so high?
The barrier of entry into 0.0 is not the problem. It is the 0.0 warfare itself. It is slow, it is static, everyone is bored if it comes to Pos-warfare. I didn't like most of the OP's proposals, because it slows down Eve-Combat even more. We don't need more forced on mechanics to capture space, we need tools in our sandbox to spice up 0.0 warfare again, stuff which adds more tactical depths than lag/no-lag.
__________________________________________________
|
Darius JOHNSON
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 03:35:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Pherusa Plumosa
The barrier of entry into 0.0 is not the problem. It is the 0.0 warfare itself. It is slow, it is static, everyone is bored if it comes to Pos-warfare. I didn't like most of the OP's proposals, because it slows down Eve-Combat even more. We don't need more forced on mechanics to capture space, we need tools in our sandbox to spice up 0.0 warfare again, stuff which adds more tactical depths than lag/no-lag.
Do you have an example? "Stuff" is a bit hard to quantify.
Originally by: Jade Constantine
You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe.
--
Illaria's CSM |
Visakoth
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 03:11:00 -
[209]
Reading that wall of text was bad enough, so having not read any other posts, this idea is terrible. All this talk about not requiring numbers to do stuff so that small corps can do stuff in 0.0 is dumb. Doing these things may not require many people, but you will lose to the person who brings 2 or 3 times as many assets with cap support.
tl;dr Blobbing is impossible to fix unless you limit the number of people in an area. Someone else will always have more cannon fodder people.
|
Enyka
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 12:09:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Kelsin
Scratching the paint is very different than totaling the car. I think that this proposal still very much rewards the kind of long term efforts the current 0.0 alliances have made to build their empires. What it changes is creating a layer on top with more give and take than the rigid and linear POS warfare.
The war is not broken, it does not require fixing. The ways we wage the wars are not set in stone, the give and take is all in the creativity and tactical planning of the corporations and alliances engaging in them. These proposals to completely revamp 0.0 combat are un-needed. We're going backwards here.
The gates idea is just wrong if anything else. If people want to own a gate they have the ability already, sit on it with a gang, done.
If anything is to be discussed for revamping intergalactic warfare, it should be streamlining the system that is in place before going in a completely different direction. What you're talking about is like building a kit car for say an old muscle car, and then half way through when its almost ready to run, you decide you'd rather have an exotic sportscar kit, but instead of finishing what you had and then adding something else thats cool to the collection, you just start throwing crap from the exotic car, onto the muscle car. In the end you end up with something ugly that barely works if it does, when you could have had the most solid muscle on the block.
Layers is the name? Okay... we have layers of functioning material thats got a few wrinkles. IRON IT OUT.
Small gang PvP being compared to Capital large scale engagements... I'm not sure you're playing to much anymore, if you want to get in a gang with a bunch of rifters and go have a good time, you can. If you want to get into a badger with smartbombs for kicks, you can. If you want to have 100 rifters fight 100 merlins, this can be achieved as well.
The layers you were yapping about are in place, only they're more accurately called roles, and each ship has one, and each object in the space our ships roam in has one too. Frigates are designed for small gang operations, logistics harassment, and tackling, the player has more than enough option to stay in a frigate for their entire stay in EVE and enjoy it. The roles of Capital ships are to fight in large scale operations. Look at Concord on a gate, frigates, ewar, logistics, battleships, cruisers, battlecruisers, each ship has its role.
For every player/pilot there is a goal, for every ship/game mechanic there is a role. Focus on making the system in place shine, then see what accessories and remodles should be done. Because there are a lot more complaints about minor stuff, then there is the entire system.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |