|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.03 13:56:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Jhala Formei
Originally by: Heraklitus Nomidzon Fountain shows a "9" marker, but there is no "9" in the key on the right.
And there is a 1 on the key, but none on the map.
and only 1 of the 3 contested regions is on the key. Is he slipping a bit? ;p
There is still fighting in Fountain (though most of it involves Xelas and not BoB), probably best if Josh comes and takes a look and figures out if he wants the war marker there or not.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 15:23:00 -
[2]
Originally by: DB Preacher Edited by: DB Preacher on 03/07/2006 14:34:56 Unless you are directly involved in a claim on our territory then please refrain from posting on this thread with regards our territories as it simply confuses matters. We don't do it to anyone else and would appreciate if people didn't do it to us.
The question is whether the war markers are there for information purposes or as a prelude to region contesting.
If the former then there probably should be one in Fountain and if the latter there probably should not. I don't particularly care either way but I think that the role of the markers should be clarified.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.05 15:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain
Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Jhala Formei
Originally by: Heraklitus Nomidzon Fountain shows a "9" marker, but there is no "9" in the key on the right.
And there is a 1 on the key, but none on the map.
and only 1 of the 3 contested regions is on the key. Is he slipping a bit? ;p
There is still fighting in Fountain (though most of it involves Xelas and not BoB), probably best if Josh comes and takes a look and figures out if he wants the war marker there or not.
Venal and Stain arent contested, theyre multi faction warzones as detailed by the 2 marker on them.
As for 1 and 2 in the legenda, theyre always there as they reserve those numbers even if theyre not actually present on the map at this time.
The map has little bubbles attached to Venal and Stain that say "contested space". So are you differentiating space contested between 2 parties and space contested between multiple parties?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.06 22:00:00 -
[4]
Your post is spam. My posts are neither provacative nor uneccesary. If you have a constructive comment on what I have said, post it. Otherwise you are spamming.
This is a community resource. Indeed, one could argue that its primarily for the people NOT involved, since the people involved in the conflicts the map represents know alot more detail about their conflict than a mere picture can bely. Since I am not asking for changes at all, but merely offering a few critical comments, the responses to which could help clarify the current version of the map, I am not sure how you justify making your post.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 09:26:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Baun on 07/07/2006 09:35:16
Originally by: Dianabolic
As much as I agree with the principle of what you're saying, Baun...
Those rules do not seem to be limited to asking for changes in territorial standing. My questions are about the way the map is presented and serve as a prelude to suggestions for its presentation should be changed. I have not broken any rules.
If the mods want to delete comments that are constructive, genuinely trying to help and are not insulting or provacative in anyway, they can feel free. I am not going to repost.
Of course its been 4-5 days and they haven't done anything. It looks to me like the bigger "threat" to this thread is it being derailed by people quoting rules by which I have abided instead of addressing the rather simple, and potentially revealing questions I am asking. So, if you will, allow Josh to answer my 2 basic questions and we can all gain a greater understanding of what his war markers mean and how he is trying to present the status of stain and venal.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 09:38:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Karosiak
Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 07/07/2006 09:30:08
Originally by: Dianabolic
As much as I agree with the principle of what you're saying, Baun...
Those rules do not seem to be limited to asking for changes in territorial If they want to delete comments that are constructive, genuinely trying to help and are not insulting or provacative in anyway, they can feel free. I am not going to repost.
Of course its been 4-5 days and they haven't done anything. It looks to me like the bigger "threat" to this thread is it being derailed by people quoting ill-conceieved rules instead of addressing the rather simple, and potentially revealing questions I am asking.
Is anyone else hearing waaaaaaaa waaaaaaaaa booooo hoooo hoooooooooo?
Which part of mail him don't you get?
Now leave the alliance map to alliances, get out of the thread and stop spamming it with absolute rubbish.
What is wrong with you?
I am not spamming this thread, Y O U A R E.
I have not broken any rules, you have.
I am not asking for changes in territorial control, I am asking the map maker to clarify some things about the presentation of his map. Given that he made the map for the community, the proper place to address things that could clarify its reception is in a public forum.
Stop spamming, stop destroying this thread. I am doing nothing wrong. The only people who are not being constructive are people posting useless comments such as yours.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 14:51:00 -
[7]
Thanks for replying Josh.
Quote:
Originally by: Baun The map has little bubbles attached to Venal and Stain that say "contested space". So are you differentiating space contested between 2 parties and space contested between multiple parties?
Venal and Stain are marked as multifaction warzones, which basically means i am unable to find any usefull or accurate information as to who is actually in control of the region.
Would it make more sense to materially differentiate how you represent multi-faction war zones and contested regions on the map?
Since you have those 2 regions listed as contested but don't have an indentifiable conflict going on there for control of the region, would leaving the region completely blank and putting a multi-faction warzone marker there be better? That way when you have a region that is contested it can be made clear which factions are vying for control, and then in the future you can show who won (it would certainly make those animated map GIFs cooler). A multi-faction warzone could overtime evolve into a contested region when you have sufficient information.
Anyhow just a thought on that .... can't understand why people felt the need to spam in response to this.
Quote:
Originally by: Baun The question is whether the war markers are there for information purposes or as a prelude to region contesting.
Information purposes.
That makes sense.
The only input I have is that as far as Fountain goes, there is still alot of fighting, but it only occassionally involves BoB (when they really show up, they usually heavily outnumber their enemies there). I would suggest leaving the war marker but changing it to the people you have listed vs. Xelas. Certainly no region contesting going on there, but definitely fighting of which people should probably be aware.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2006.07.07 15:53:00 -
[8]
Well in the last month just Celes has killed 60 BS, 1 carrier and 2-3 dozen HACs/Command ships just in Fountain (and about 100+ support ships), despite being virtually inactive for almost 2 weeks. As I said, this was mostly (almost exlusively, particularly lately) against Xelas. We are certainly fighting a war there.
I could care less what your perception on the matter is DBP, given that you are unable to see my name without turning into an even larger ***** (if that is actually possible).
Josh should go take a look. If he wants to remove the marker, he should certainly do so. My primary question was about what the markers were meant to represent, and according to his response it appears to be unrelated to territorial control. I am therefor somewhat mystified as to how you justify objecting to me posting (though I am not at all confused as to your motives).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.03 03:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Onchas Erivvia
Constructive post
I have grappled with alot of this myself. In the end the situation is only complicated in NPC regions where no one has built an outpost. Good examples of this are Venal and Stain (Curse and GW too? I don't know about outposts there or not, I have not kept track).
I don't think that there is a way to accurately gauge control over an NPC region when there are no structures to fight over. No one can control docking rights and anyone can live out of the NPC stations barring 23/7 camping. 23/7 camping would establish definite control/ownership but nowhere does anyone do this continuously and nowhere should they do it.
Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there. To this end, Fountain is actually a pretty good counterpoint. If people want to challenge BoB's control of Fountain they should take one of the outposts there. While giving Bob control of Fountain before they had outposts may have made little or no sense (given that they were rarely there, and no DBP we don't need to have this discussion again), given that they own the most stations in the region, it makes alot of sense to say that they control the region.
Stated more generally, claiming a region should only be possible by owning real estate in the region. This criteria will always be met in regions with conquerable stations, but in order to stake your claim to a region without a conquerable station you should be required to build one. Failing that, you actually control little or nothing with respect to that region (you might argue that some regions are unique given the configuration of their stations which make them easy to "actually control" but this is not particularly material to the discussion).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:31:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Baun on 04/12/2006 00:44:41 Edited by: Baun on 04/12/2006 00:43:22
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
And there is no reason people shouldn't be forced to give themselves something to lose if they want official recognition.
If we can agree on this I am curious as to what Josh's reasons might be for not going in this direction (yet?).
A corrolary issue that I did not touch on is whether regions should be shown contested as a whole or in parts. Given that, under the proposed regime, controlling the "NPC" parts of a 0.0 region is granted to the people who own the conquerable stations in the region, it seems like contesting any part of an NPC station region should be akin to contesting the entierty of the region.
If you can't rationally award control over uncontrollable statios barring ownership of outposts/conquerables then you shouldn't award control over uncontrollable stations withtout complete control over all available outposts/conquerables.
In the case of completely non-NPC regions, it seems more rational to award control of regions based on the location of stations owned. Here, there are no uncontrollable assets awarded to either side and the situation is ground more firmly in reality.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 10:00:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Baun on 06/12/2006 10:00:32
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
NPC region stay uncontrolable(?), the simple fact that ppl can dock all over the place just makes in hard to control. So id guess no control of npc region for anyone.
The idea is that if you want to award control over regions that have stations in them like this it must be based on *something*. It probably makes most sense to say that no one controls them (except the specific parts of regions where there are outposts), but my suggestion seems like a happy medium.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 00:49:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Baun on 07/12/2006 00:49:39
Originally by: Amerame it's very rare to have 2 hostile faction who use the same system for an extended period of time, so de facto it's possible to determine the sovereignty of systems in NPC space the trouble is that you need to have an extensive knowledge of the area for 1 system can be controled by a faction and 1 or 2 jump away it's being controled by a completely different faction.
Unless you actually want to assign sovereign control over uncontrollable assets on a system by system basis, this makes no sense. Of course, it may make no sense to assign sovereignty on a system by system basis as you suggest anyway.
Fountain has two factions that use the region and are hostile to each other. Venal has a fair number of hostiles. Curse has two large warring factions moving through all the time. I don't know much about Stain but I cannot imagine it is particularly well settled. GW certainly isn't calm.
Do you want the mapmaker to inspect who "lives" in each system or constellation and put them on the map? Living in NPC stations has nothing to do with control.
The reason it might be sensible to go with an "outpost or not sovereignty" test is that whoever is the most powerful entity in the region, barring an agreement not to take stations, will control the outpost(s). You can "live" in NPC stations forever but if you don't take the outpost from the people who control it then you can't really say you own the region.
All we need is some standard that has a rational connection to reality. It is no more realistic to assign control of an entire NPC region to absentee owners (which is bassically what BoB had pre-outposts in Fountain) than it does to scrutinize system by system living arragnements which have absolutely no connection to who controls what.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 23:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Turkantho
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
actually there are some regions, where all systems in the region are claimed by the NPCs so you can't build an outpost even if you wanted to.
Then don't assign claims to those.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 06:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: SolApathy if u dont assign claims how can u have territorial disputes, and outposts dont mean they own the region, take pureblind as an example ISS have 2 outposts yet the region is mostly run by Ekliptika and few other alliances its been a while since ive been up there.
Sol.
If you assign claims without control what do claims mean? The whole point of this is to make the map more meaningful in NPC regions. To require no substantive control of a region before assigning a claim devalues the importance of all claims.
Outposts wouldn't indicate control if the alliance controlling the outpost disclaimed control. This, for example, would be true of all ISS outposts.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 19:31:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Baun on 09/12/2006 19:35:09 Edited by: Baun on 09/12/2006 19:31:36
Originally by: Hoshi Control is not about how can dock but who can use the space for their day to day activities like npcing, mining etc.
I disagree. You cannot permanently stop those activties without controlling docking rights so in the end you are trying to gauge something that is nebulous.
If the map is to be consistent and objective and consistently meaningful it needs to rely on a consistent and objective standard NOT something vague. It might be fun to assign claims in those regions, but no one really knows what they mean and they do not represent useful information.
If there is another standard we can use that would allow more claims but is consistent I am all ears.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.09 21:25:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Amerame
Originally by: Baun
If the map is to be consistent and objective and consistently meaningful it needs to rely on a consistent and objective standard NOT something vague.
The map is supposed to be first and foremost informative, not an e-peen competition of who's going to splash the most color on it, again the situation in NPC region is much more complicated than in conquerable space : either you decide to do it correctly and go into the details of who's controling what or we decide to leave all the NPC region neutral, but relating the sovereignty of NPC regions to who's controling an outpost somewhere are is a meaningless.
You are *way* offbase if you think I am trying to promote a "e-peen competition". I am indeed trying to do the exact opposite.
Where you can be awarded "control" over an NPC region based on nothing more than how good your forum PR is and how succesful you are at making other people believe you have control without any actual control within game mechanics an "e-peen" contest emerges. Creating an objective standard is the best way to avoid this.
I think that previous heated contests over NPC regions clearly demonstrate just how right I am. Although there were no outposts then, there was alot of consternation at the apparent randomness with which NPC region control changed sides (I am sure DBP remembers this even if he doesn't agree with my characterization). Everyside would be better off if there was a predictable measure AND the people viewing the map would be better off because they would have some notion of what the map actually represents.
Requiring the building of outposts where possible makes perfect sense. If you want to be recognized as in control you should be required to give yourself something you *can* control. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't see too many people debating BoB's control over Delve based solely on Outposts/conquerables when there are NPC stations in the region.
If you can present any other objective standard that would simultaneously allow one to measure some aspect of real control and give the viewers of the map a clear idea of what control in those regions actually represents I am absolutely all ears.
As far as I can tell, however, no one has suggested anything better than I have. Everyone appeals to the notion that control over the outpost is "meaningless." But as per the Delve example that is clearly not the case. Furthermore, actual control over *something* is more meaningful than no control over anything and the map being decided mostly by who *****es the loudest.
I am really eager to see some other constructive suggestions here instead of more senseless appeals to the virtues of vagueness.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.01.07 09:30:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain I'm still in doubt as to whether a claim in the new regions should require an outpost or not.
Of course it should, what else is there to own?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 04:19:00 -
[18]
Originally by: DB Preacher Celestial Apocalypse are in the process of pulling out of Fountain Core due to "Internal Issues".
Fountain core is therefore completely uncontested nor should it be marked as a warzone.
Thanks. dbp
How about letting people make their own announcements? That way the map maker can actually know that something is true or not and adjust things accordingly.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.01.09 15:37:00 -
[19]
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: darth solo
Originally by: DB Preacher Celestial Apocalypse are in the process of pulling out of Fountain Core due to "Internal Issues".
Fountain core is therefore completely uncontested nor should it be marked as a warzone.
Thanks. dbp
so the combined COIN/XS/Corlei fleet last night lost 11 bs to NPCs?, killing 1 of ours.
YZ local. "omg celes, did we even kill one of your bs?"
ill be the one that decides when the corp, if the corp pulls out not u.
d solo.
Are you staying in Fountain for the next month?
Yes or No.
dbp
This is why I asked you to let people make their own announcements, at least on this thread.
If we do not limit this thread to discussion of map "policy" and people communicating their own claims to the map maker then it will turn into a flame fest (one which you just started now).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
|
|
|