Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
364
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:35:00 -
[481] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Maz3r Rakum wrote:@CCP
What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion. Economic pressures begin to encourage people to participate on the side of the losing faction. I believe that there should probalby be more incentives along this line than Data Cores, but that's the general idea.
At best this will mean the losing militia will have an incentive to carebear. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:39:00 -
[482] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Maz3r Rakum wrote:@CCP
What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion. Economic pressures begin to encourage people to participate on the side of the losing faction. I believe that there should probalby be more incentives along this line than Data Cores, but that's the general idea.
Economic pressures? We are not talking about control over techmoons here. FW LP as it is right now isn't worth much, and all LP stores are not created equal.
What CCP needs to do is create mechanisms to promote a status quo per se, to encourage people to want to join a weaker side. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
400
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:50:00 -
[483] - Quote
Miss Yanumano wrote:When the game crashes on Singularity, is any action required of me to make sure CCP gets the information? (I've had several anomalous crashes on SiSi while flying in space, instant CTD with a message that the game have stopped working)
For one off crashes our crash logger will be enough there so you need take no action. If you find a reproducable crash it is of paramount importance to let us know how you reproduced it. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Stalking Mantis
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
160
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:01:00 -
[484] - Quote
OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.
In regards to the Faction War changes:
1-The changes to Sov Upgrades sound like a good start as I can see CCP wanting to ease us into it (the upgrade concept that is). That being said the first two mention
1-a-Reduction in costs of Clone facilities. I am not sure about the exact numbers but the amount of times a true faction warfare pilot gets podded is pretty low as opposed to nullsec with all the bubbles etc. Granted I have derped a few times the past two months to sebo thrashers and got podded but this is usually the exception not the general rule. In other words it is not that big of an upgrade and I seriously doubt much ppl would donate isk to upgrade this feature as the prevailing thought will be 'whoever gets podded deserves the penalty' among the FW community. So to sum it up I think it will be a rarely used if not never used feature.
1-b-The extra manufacturing slot. Hmmm what can I say in my opinion there is really never a shortage of manu slots in lowsec systems to begin with so adding an extra on to the 20 already available will not be something I would consider donating my LP for. Agreed there will be a few exceptions as a few pvp corps have manu back bones to produce expendable ships for their corp (t1 frigates dessies and t1 cruisers etc.) I don't see this as a REAL benefit. Perhaps a SERIOUS consideration of an extra research slot as that is something that is EXTREMELY precious and scarce would be a better option in my opinion.
In regards to the ppl screaming about being locked out of station I think they should just HTFU it is not like nullsec where you will be facing a Pandemic Legion Titan blob absolutely killing your hopes of ever docking or coming back to your space. Besides ppl should spread out their assets anyway in my case if I lose access to any one of my stations in lowsec no biggy I lost access to a few ships I never keep all my eggs in one basket. For capitol pilots I can see this being a concern but in the end it will only mean relocating capitals to less 'hot' systems as they are always movable with a few well placed cyno's anyway. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2294
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:05:00 -
[485] - Quote
Stalking Mantis wrote:OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.
I certainly am! And thank you. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
136
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:12:00 -
[486] - Quote
Maz3r Rakum wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote:Good discussion, keep it coming. As CCP Soundwave stated we are actually locked in to continue working on FW after Inferno, so we will be monitoring the short term effects and have some long term plans that we didn't get time to do. Keep up the good "work" on FW. Your work will kill FW.
Maz3r Rakum if u've got nothing constructive to say, or no explanation of your reasonings why u feel how u feel, then say nothing. |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:19:00 -
[487] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Stalking Mantis wrote:OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.
I certainly am! And thank you.
despite the Damars opinion which I respect .... Hans this changes are massive fail and u r proving u r not very independent CSM FW representative. Honestly proposed changes are massively promoting blobfests and number stronger parties (currently Minnies and Gals). Huge benefit of FW - small scale warfare in lowsec - got massive hit if these changes will become real as less blobing party will be forced out of lowsec.
ad Damar - I dont agree we will not be facing PL blobs .... I remember times when Caldari was dominating pipes, I rememeber times when Gals were rolling over us very very hard ... in case these rules will be up in these times there will be no more faction war.
ad CCP - u r changing it into sov nullsec ..... and many dont want it (we live in low because we dont want to be ****** up by blob terror in an empty wasteland) ... u wanna prove urself again like a company which does not care? Not everyone wants to live in ur time dilatated wet dreams.
IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free>>>free ****>>>????
Public ch.: Basterds on vacation-á |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:32:00 -
[488] - Quote
Damar Rocarion wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:And if not, than they deserve to lose their space. v0v And there goes your neutrality. Welcome back Ankh, I quess.... You seem to think that being able to soak punishment and losses automatically means success. To quote immortal words of Private Frost, " What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language? "
yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free>>>free ****>>>????
Public ch.: Basterds on vacation-á |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:40:00 -
[489] - Quote
umm i am stoked for the reduced clone thing... i just wish you moved faction warfare to pirate null sec so i could get cheep clones in null sec...
Please oh please ccp expand faction warfare to npc null sec... i will love you foreverz... promise... PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2295
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:43:00 -
[490] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote: yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
117
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:54:00 -
[491] - Quote
EDIT
Never mind found out that you can just click on the ships tab to get the old icon list... my appologies ^_^ |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:07:00 -
[492] - Quote
Stalking Mantis wrote: 1-b-The extra manufacturing slot. Hmmm what can I say in my opinion there is really never a shortage of manu slots in lowsec systems to begin with so adding an extra on to the 20 already available will not be something I would consider donating my LP for. Agreed there will be a few exceptions as a few pvp corps have manu back bones to produce expendable ships for their corp (t1 frigates dessies and t1 cruisers etc.) I don't see this as a REAL benefit. Perhaps a SERIOUS consideration of an extra research slot as that is something that is EXTREMELY precious and scarce would be a better option in my opinion. --------------
I'd say add manufacturing and copy slots |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:19:00 -
[493] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation?
considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).
what we need changes which are neutral to all sides .... reason is simple FW allways lived in cycles ... this change is just hitting the ballance or option to reballance to place where it will not revive. Also it promotes blobery and is not properly thinked through.
IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free>>>free ****>>>????
Public ch.: Basterds on vacation-á |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2297
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:47:00 -
[494] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote: considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).
Just so everyone's crystal clear, I'll post for you some of what I posted in the CCP internal thread. There's nothing NDA breaking about sharing my own opinions, and I think its important for you to understand where I've been coming from.
" I am dubious about mechanics that revolve around pilot numbers specifically, as they can always be gamed by adding alts into another militia. However, one side capturing most or all of a given territory is an extremely likely scenario (its already happened).
-
By providing some PvP-LP incentives for the losing militia, there becomes a reason to stick with your faction when the chips are down. This is extremely important to the existing community, because engaging in a long term static war against known enemies has been part of the lasting appeal. IGÇÖd hate to see Faction Warfare become a giant revolving door engaged in by pilots dipping in and out or switching sides just to make the most money. Any mechanism that helps the underdog stay in the fight and bounce back from behind is sorely needed."
Also:
"Paired with enough other incentives that reward "total victory" by one faction or another, you essentially give the losing faction no way to fight back using the ships they've paid for. Do we really want to force all faction warfare pilots to base outside of the faction warfare zones? "
Your assertions that I'm somehow gaming this for my own benefit are ridiculous, and this is the last I'll answer to those accusations. I've been fighting for an elastic system that is fair to the losing side from the beginning, regardless of whether you're happy with the results. All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting.
Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1564
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:53:00 -
[495] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation? considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).
Are you actually serious with this tinfoil RP nonsense? Wait, don't answer that... you probably didn't think for more than three seconds before you made your post insulting one of the CSM's hardest working members. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
364
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:54:00 -
[496] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation? considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now). what we need changes which are neutral to all sides .... reason is simple FW allways lived in cycles ... this change is just hitting the ballance or option to reballance to place where it will not revive. Also it promotes blobery and is not properly thinked through.
Hans may have simply forgotten what its like to be the underdog in this war. But I really don't think he is purposefully trying to make mechanics that help the minmatar and gallente. These changes might help them right now but I don't think he is deliberately trying to help his own faction. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
364
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 20:10:00 -
[497] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting.
Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances.
Sure lots of fw pilots are willing to try it before quitting. A lot more null sec pilots are pretty positive about it too. I'm sure you see all their positive comments about this too right?
That raises the question: what do you mean it might "fail." Fail for whom? Fail for null sec inclined players who like these sorts of mechanics? No those players will do fine. There will be big fleet fights with this sort of mechanic. Lots of people like big fleet fights and so it won't fail for them. Lots of people like the idea of putting in allot of effort and getting a big reward. They too will eat this up. This will be just like what they get and like in null sec.
The problem is those of us who don't want eve to be a second job and just want frequent quality small scale pvp will not do well with this no docking and long flip times. Eve will be a much less inviting game for us.
If you are in the first camp then keep cheering about these changes. If you are in the later camp then please keep pushing ccp in that direction. Even if you know they are going to force this down our throats. Even after they force it down our throats keep pushing for our style of play. Thats why we elected you.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:18:00 -
[498] - Quote
I thought the deny to dock was also applied in hign sec. It is not. A bit strange in a RP pow to be hunted in ennemy space (with a warning from above) and be able to dock in a station.
Ninja edit : you might say who cares about high-sec when you are in the FW ? "Hiding" ships in a high sec entrance could become the only way to avoid an extending front line and attack from behind. |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:28:00 -
[499] - Quote
Sutha Moliko wrote:I thought the deny to dock was also applied in hign sec. It is not. A bit strange in a RP pow to be hunted in ennemy space (with a warning from above) and be able to dock in a station.
Ninja edit : you might say who cares about high-sec when you are in the FW ? "Hiding" ships in a high sec entrance could become the only way to avoid an extending front line and attack from behind.
well i am considering Villore to be one of the safe systems :) IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free>>>free ****>>>????
Public ch.: Basterds on vacation-á |
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:32:00 -
[500] - Quote
just some quick feedback.
missles/launchers - From what I've seen so far the missile effects pretty good. I will say I'm not so hot on the missile explosions. It looks like just a bit of flame, not really an explosion. I've only used heavy missiles at this point. - The launchers look awesome. M - I have noticed a delay in the time from when hit the button to launch missiles to when I do actually launch. I haven't made a timed comparison but it does seem like it takes longer to kill things with this apparent delay.
Inventory management - overall not bad. it will take some getting used to. - the fact that your ship doesn't actually show up in your ships menu is odd. yes I know it's at the top, just seems weird. - I do like the drag and drop in the single window. It will make moving stuff around really easy with not having to use multiple windows. - Suggestion: there are times where multiple windows will be needed. I know you can open an inventory section by either using the shortcut key or right clicking it..... can you just make it so double clicking it will open up that section into a new window? - Suggestion: I'm not sure if this is part of the plan or not but can please make it so that we can set up separate "folders" or "sections" in our inventory. So for example, right now I have to use containers to keep my items separate. The issue here is A) I can't interact with items in a container like I can in the items window. ie, repackage items. B) containers have limited space.
that's all I got for now.
|
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:32:00 -
[501] - Quote
@Punkturis and friends: I noticed that the "view" settings for your new (pretty) inventory UI are global. Would it be possible to make the settings so that specific tree items can be set to their own viewing mode?
IE, I personally prefer list mode for my items inventory, but large-icon mode for my ship hangar. Currently if I set the items tab to list, the hangar is also set to list, etc.
Nice job on the new UI overall! It's still slowing me down ATM but I'm sure as I get accustomed to clicking in the right places rather than sitting there going :hurrrrwhattt?: it will prove more efficient than the old system. |
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
598
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:34:00 -
[502] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Hidden Snake wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation? considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now). Are you actually serious with this tinfoil RP nonsense? Wait, don't answer that... you probably didn't think for more than three seconds before you made your post insulting one of the CSM's hardest working members. If you are mad blame CCP and make constructive suggestions; don't try to lay off several months worth of development on an elected CSM rep that's been on the job barely one month and is still doing his best to pass along the FW community's concerns.
you tell them! I vote for you, represent me! don't let CCP do anything but push forward based off of our testing the new system and giving feedback.
Killing a new change to FW based on fear and speculation is pointless. |
Hrett
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:37:00 -
[503] - Quote
Someone from SiSi just said you have to capture numerous systems in a group before they all lock you out from docking. Is that true? Can someone clarify? Sounds interesting. |
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
598
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:42:00 -
[504] - Quote
ahhh I'm going crazy!!!!
my new laptops GPU seem to have broken the same day as these changes go live. FFFFFFFF after three years I finally have a reason to log in, and I can't lol.
also this thread reminds me of people hating the NEO NEO COM. which is now in the game, and no one has a problem with it. BUT at the time there was people yelling off the rooftops that the neo neo com was going to ruin eve, and it was such a bad UI that it should burn in a fire.
And it got canceled before it be tested. i will not let that happen again, but this time to FW.
also like the neo neocom *which is awesome btw* people try to say "no one asked for this ccp the UI is fine! no one is complaining about your UI!" or" no one was complaining about FW, don't fix what isn't broken!"
These people must have lost part of their braincells. People have been asking for these change for years. I for one will not fight CCP for finally giving FW some attention, when I've been fighting for FW before it was even released.
Don't make me eve search up me and hilmars conversations on the forums before FW release! |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
447
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:51:00 -
[505] - Quote
I think the only major things that really need to be discussed involve the tanking mods. The drone mod simply needs to be better (less fitting, more bonus), and the CPU rig needs to be balanced so we don't have people getting fits that shouldn't be possible (ie: cov-ops titans).
ARMOR ADAPTIVE HARDENER Simply put, it needs to be better. For starters, this module is only effective in small fights where the damage types are more concentrated as opposed to fleet fights. For this reason, these are never going to go on Capitals over a nice EANM.
With that said, the module needs to be more effective. The reason being is that this is a module that would act as your tertiary tank mod, for ships that would normally be plugging a small hole (ie: EM on T2 Gallente). It needs to be better because right now it's better to take your chances with a stacked EANM. The problem is that the adaptive module takes too long to react.
It has a 10 second cycle time and adjusts 1% into the respective spots per cycle. It takes far too much time it takes to adjust to a level that would exceed that of a stacked EANM or simply another active specific hardener.
For starters, I would give the module significantly more HP for overloading. It overheats WAY too fast, and right now it's so weak that it NEEDS to be overloaded. Next, I would say at least double the rate it adapts. Either by percentage OR by reducing the cycle time. The mod is simply too weak at the moment to be taken seriously, as it's pretty much useless on T1 ships.
ANCILLARY SHIELD BOOSTERS I'm hoping these are unfinished...
The first glaring problem is the reload time, and there are a couple reasons why. I know why you've picked 60 seconds. It makes sense that since the maximum you can squeeze in is 6 tiny (navy) charges, you would make the reload time a combined amount (6 x 10) of a normal injector. the problem with this method is that, in fights where active tanking is useful, you cap out WAY too fast, and fights generally don't last much longer than 2 minutes or so. That is a HUGE amount of time where you can't boost.
That brings us to the second issue with the reload time. This has less to do with the module, but more to do with the reload mechanic. You can't do anything during the 60 seconds. Once your module starts to reload you can't use your ships cap in the meantime. This is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned, and for obvious reasons will always* result in the ship exploding long before it finishes reloading and starts to tank again.
The next issue is the cap charges themselves. Right now there is no reason to use the larger cap charges unless you LIKE to reload for 60 seconds. The cap doesn't overflow into the capacitor, so for using something like 800s (2 or 3 navy), you need to reload after a few seconds and have effectively burned through 800 cap PER CYCLE. That's an expensive shield booster. If boosting with larger charges would overflow into the capacitor & we can keep boosting, using ships cap, during the reload THEN there would be a reason to use them. Right now, small charges are ahead by a mile and larger ones are useless.
Lastly, I was under the impression that these things would just be drinking fuel from your cargo and not need to be reloaded after a few cycles like they do now. The balancing factor being that they would drink cap way faster (which they do) than the traditional types. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
366
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:53:00 -
[506] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:ahhh I'm going crazy!!!!
my new laptops GPU seem to have broken the same day as these changes go live. FFFFFFFF after three years I finally have a reason to log in, and I can't lol.
also this thread reminds me of people hating the NEO NEO COM. which is now in the game, and no one has a problem with it. BUT at the time there was people yelling off the rooftops that the neo neo com was going to ruin eve, and it was such a bad UI that it should burn in a fire.
And it got canceled before it be tested. i will not let that happen again, but this time to FW.
also like the neo neocom *which is awesome btw* people try to say "no one asked for this ccp the UI is fine! no one is complaining about your UI!" or" no one was complaining about FW, don't fix what isn't broken!"
These people must have lost part of their braincells. People have been asking for these change for years. I for one will not fight CCP for finally giving FW some attention, when I've been fighting for FW before it was even released.
Don't make me eve search up me and hilmars conversations on the forums before FW release!
Your conversation with hilmar will likely only yield you asking for this change. Most in faction war have always been against this no docking rule. It has come up allot and it gets shot down again and again.
Anyway are we supposed to be talking about what is actually on sisi?
In that case, yes I was on sisi, and although I am in the amarr militia my own militia's station wouldn't let me dock. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
598
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:54:00 -
[507] - Quote
before you make to much feedback take this into consideration *even though I can't test it >.<*
With the shield booster, you could fit one normal shield booster, and one of these new shield charges. I think that was the idea behind the reload time. it's not suppose to be a solo shield rep. |
Stalking Mantis
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
160
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:58:00 -
[508] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).
Just so everyone's crystal clear, I'll post for you some of what I posted in the CCP internal thread. There's nothing NDA breaking about sharing my own opinions, and I think its important for you to understand where I've been coming from. " I am dubious about mechanics that revolve around pilot numbers specifically, as they can always be gamed by adding alts into another militia. However, one side capturing most or all of a given territory is an extremely likely scenario (its already happened).
-
By providing some PvP-LP incentives for the losing militia, there becomes a reason to stick with your faction when the chips are down. This is extremely important to the existing community, because engaging in a long term static war against known enemies has been part of the lasting appeal. IGÇÖd hate to see Faction Warfare become a giant revolving door engaged in by pilots dipping in and out or switching sides just to make the most money. Any mechanism that helps the underdog stay in the fight and bounce back from behind is sorely needed."Also: "Paired with enough other incentives that reward "total victory" by one faction or another, you essentially give the losing faction no way to fight back using the ships they've paid for. Do we really want to force all faction warfare pilots to base outside of the faction warfare zones? "Your assertions that I'm somehow gaming this for my own benefit are ridiculous, and this is the last I'll answer to those accusations. I've been fighting for an elastic system that is fair to the losing side from the beginning, regardless of whether you're happy with the results. All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting. Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances.
I strongly advise CCP to consider what was posted in post #128 of this thread to help balance the powers. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1231972#post1231972
Do excuse my old Caldari friends they are a paranoid race by default :P
|
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
598
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:59:00 -
[509] - Quote
Cearain wrote:MotherMoon wrote:ahhh I'm going crazy!!!!
my new laptops GPU seem to have broken the same day as these changes go live. FFFFFFFF after three years I finally have a reason to log in, and I can't lol.
also this thread reminds me of people hating the NEO NEO COM. which is now in the game, and no one has a problem with it. BUT at the time there was people yelling off the rooftops that the neo neo com was going to ruin eve, and it was such a bad UI that it should burn in a fire.
And it got canceled before it be tested. i will not let that happen again, but this time to FW.
also like the neo neocom *which is awesome btw* people try to say "no one asked for this ccp the UI is fine! no one is complaining about your UI!" or" no one was complaining about FW, don't fix what isn't broken!"
These people must have lost part of their braincells. People have been asking for these change for years. I for one will not fight CCP for finally giving FW some attention, when I've been fighting for FW before it was even released.
Don't make me eve search up me and hilmars conversations on the forums before FW release! Your conversation with hilmar will likely only yield you asking for this change. Most in faction war have always been against this no docking rule. It has come up allot and it gets shot down again and again. Anyway are we supposed to be talking about what is actually on sisi? In that case, yes I was on sisi, and although I am in the amarr militia my own militia's station wouldn't let me dock.
What are you taking about? my conversation with hilmar was asking where FW was when it's release date had been pushed back a year. And talking about how it will get supported and patched by a small team after release until the system was polished. I am on your side you know.
we shouldn't try to cancel the change until it's tested, what so hard for you to understand about that?
edit: one more thing.
" Most in faction war have always been against this no docking rule. It has come up allot and it gets shot down again and again. "
Yeah because only 10% of FW original population are even left. WE all left , or became inactive. The only people left must really like the current system to still be defending it, but you can't argue with the fact that FW has lost it's popularity. In a way I guess ccp should of expected this. By abandoning the feature a lot of players left *70-80% of us* and the only ones left now see it as thier game. And obviously everyone left doesn't like the changes. That doesn't make the changes bad.
LETS TEST IT 1ST. |
MotherMoon
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
598
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:01:00 -
[510] - Quote
Stalking Mantis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hidden Snake wrote: considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).
Just so everyone's crystal clear, I'll post for you some of what I posted in the CCP internal thread. There's nothing NDA breaking about sharing my own opinions, and I think its important for you to understand where I've been coming from. " I am dubious about mechanics that revolve around pilot numbers specifically, as they can always be gamed by adding alts into another militia. However, one side capturing most or all of a given territory is an extremely likely scenario (its already happened).
-
By providing some PvP-LP incentives for the losing militia, there becomes a reason to stick with your faction when the chips are down. This is extremely important to the existing community, because engaging in a long term static war against known enemies has been part of the lasting appeal. IGÇÖd hate to see Faction Warfare become a giant revolving door engaged in by pilots dipping in and out or switching sides just to make the most money. Any mechanism that helps the underdog stay in the fight and bounce back from behind is sorely needed."Also: "Paired with enough other incentives that reward "total victory" by one faction or another, you essentially give the losing faction no way to fight back using the ships they've paid for. Do we really want to force all faction warfare pilots to base outside of the faction warfare zones? "Your assertions that I'm somehow gaming this for my own benefit are ridiculous, and this is the last I'll answer to those accusations. I've been fighting for an elastic system that is fair to the losing side from the beginning, regardless of whether you're happy with the results. All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting. Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances. I strongly advise CCP to consider what was posted in post #128 of this thread to help balance the powers. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1231972#post1231972Do excuse my old Caldari friends they are a paranoid race by default :P
Well thank you |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |