Yeah, but his point was that with a hard choke, you don't need two perfect players for this deadlock to occur. They just have to be two somewhat evenly skilled players.
I disagree. There are many, many strategy games (as well as simulations, etc) with the ability to create a "hard choke," yet it does not automatically result in a deadlocked game.
Wow you guys are crazy if a starbase could hold enemy fleets and keep it from jumping away the game would jsut become who can capture the enemy fleet first.
Not necessarily the starbase itself, but "something" whether it is a phase jump inhibitor or whatever. Also, it doesn't mean that a fleet is just held there forever, thus "game over." It just means that to move on, you have to destroy the phase jump inhibitor. Seems like a fair proposition to me.
This would kill MP and remove any strategy what so ever.
Wouldn't remove any strategy at all. In fact, if anything it adds more map strategy.
Not to mention no one would send a fleet out without 40 bombers to kill your starbase in under a minute, which would just make the games go on for hours and hours.
Nothing wrong with long games, but in multiplayer with random people online I can definately see why you'd want the option for them to be shorter. In that case, the answer is just what I said - insert an option for them to be shorter. This can be done with map sizes, number of players in a game, and even on/off toggles to control whether a unit is buildable in a game or not (say, the PJI).
I've always thought that a more configurable game would reduce all the screaming people do about siege frigs, PJIs. carriers, length of games, and everything else. One would think this would have been implemented by the devs a long time ago, as it seems such an obvious solution to things.