Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
03-10-2010, 08:15 PM
mirror matches, in a nutshell, show that the better player will win 90% of the time, because once all the variables have been flattened out only skill matters. That is my ideal PvP, the better player/team winning without having to resort to gimmicks, bugged/op skills, etc.

"and I heard there are no respawns in RL... what if I get lag?"

agreed 100%
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
03-10-2010, 08:22 PM
I think we need to use more specific language. Does the game need to be balanced? Yes it does, but not by making everything equal or mirrors of the other...but comparable weighing their unique strengths and weakness as total packages.

War requires advantage, superiority, inbalance...we need it in individual aspects of one ship to another, we need it for the number people in a battle for one side to another, we need it when it comes to group compositions for the battle...

But keeping that in mind comparable ship types from one faction or another need to have approximate parity with each other when weighing their unique attributes, over whelming numbers in battle need to come from the players organizing and committing, concentrating forces in an objective area as a spearhead, but at the expense of being someplace else and its objective. One task force should be able to out class another by virtue of the resources/assets they bring.

This way ships and captains can be more or less successful based on how skillfully they utilize thier strengths, while minimizing operations catering to their weaknesses. One group can be out numbered, yet still out class a larger task force by being the group with superior equipment(more higher tier assets)...or a group of low tier units can out-number and over whelm superior equipped opponents through sheer numbers.

The beauty of all this, is that inequality finds it rightful place in our war at different layers of interaction/observation, but balance and parity be the resulting big picture. What we need is minimal scripting/tinkering/interference/"balancing" for most all objectives except the few most critical objectives(where organized massive scale scenerios can be "built" or at least prepped by the devs).

Let the capture of all the po'dunk systems be totally open...but the capture of Governor systems/Sector capitals, etc, be staged once the capture of open objectives/systems reach a point to trigger the "managed" super-battle for regional control.

Now this isntto say you dont think well of yourself...Im sure you do in fact. Its because you want, desire and expect success(we all do), you seek to maintain that sense of success, especially if it isnt where you really want. Its the disappoint or fear of not succeeding in these places that drives to be this way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
03-11-2010, 11:31 AM
Originally Posted by lunatec View Post
I do not like even battles. I like challenges. Two teams, perfectly even, will be 50/50, almost every time. What fun is that? I want to have to fight and work for my victories, not have someone dictate what "fair" is. RL is not fair, war is not fair.

I have been in, they are not fun, but you learn a lot about life from them.
You shouldn't play MMO's if you want real war. This is a fantasy realm on the internet that tries to make all players happy so they keep paying to play. That is reality, welcome to it.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 AM.