Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Almity
Imperial Outlaws
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 21:32:00 -
[601] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Nitalya wrote:just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec This is obviously something we're looking into, you're talking to a Logistics pilot here. My security status drops are almost exclusively because of repairing miltia members. Nitalya wrote:... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.
There already exists many systems throughout low sec unaffected by the war, which therefore provide a base of operations that cannot be taken away. For example, some of the Amarr militia have already retreated to Egghelende, which connects to the Hed constellation via Siseide and allows them to base a few jumps away from Minmatar sovereign space without ever suffering lockout.
First, there was no retreat. We saw the changes our minmatar csm overlord was pushing for and we decided we didn't want to risk being locked out of our stuff. Now with the increase in flip times its not such a worry.
Second, Egg is closer to the Minmatar bases than our old base. If anything we advanced! Use a little better judgement in your words Hans.
Third, and final, I hoped when I voted for you I was voting for a FW csm voice. Now Im sure I voted for a Minmatar CSM. You can say all you want about how you pushed for fair changes but dev blogs and patch notes say so much more than you. Im really sorry I wasted my vote this year. Next year I won't make the same mistake. |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 22:38:00 -
[602] - Quote
Almity wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Nitalya wrote:just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec This is obviously something we're looking into, you're talking to a Logistics pilot here. My security status drops are almost exclusively because of repairing miltia members. Nitalya wrote:... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.
There already exists many systems throughout low sec unaffected by the war, which therefore provide a base of operations that cannot be taken away. For example, some of the Amarr militia have already retreated to Egghelende, which connects to the Hed constellation via Siseide and allows them to base a few jumps away from Minmatar sovereign space without ever suffering lockout. First, there was no retreat. We saw the changes our minmatar csm overlord was pushing for and we decided we didn't want to risk being locked out of our stuff. Now with the increase in flip times its not such a worry. Second, Egg is closer to the Minmatar bases than our old base. If anything we advanced! Use a little better judgement in your words Hans. Third, and final, I hoped when I voted for you I was voting for a FW csm voice. Now Im sure I voted for a Minmatar CSM. You can say all you want about how you pushed for fair changes but dev blogs and patch notes say so much more than you. Im really sorry I wasted my vote this year. Next year I won't make the same mistake.
Wow.
You do realize Hans was pro-reset, despite all of us nasty Minmatar telling him it was stupid and against all precedents CCP had set? You do realize Hans doesn't support the full station lock-out? You do realize Hans isn't the puppet-master at CCP HQ? He can only do so much, haha.
Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
407
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:14:00 -
[603] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Almity wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Nitalya wrote:just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec This is obviously something we're looking into, you're talking to a Logistics pilot here. My security status drops are almost exclusively because of repairing miltia members. Nitalya wrote:... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.
There already exists many systems throughout low sec unaffected by the war, which therefore provide a base of operations that cannot be taken away. For example, some of the Amarr militia have already retreated to Egghelende, which connects to the Hed constellation via Siseide and allows them to base a few jumps away from Minmatar sovereign space without ever suffering lockout. First, there was no retreat. We saw the changes our minmatar csm overlord was pushing for and we decided we didn't want to risk being locked out of our stuff. Now with the increase in flip times its not such a worry. Second, Egg is closer to the Minmatar bases than our old base. If anything we advanced! Use a little better judgement in your words Hans. Third, and final, I hoped when I voted for you I was voting for a FW csm voice. Now Im sure I voted for a Minmatar CSM. You can say all you want about how you pushed for fair changes but dev blogs and patch notes say so much more than you. Im really sorry I wasted my vote this year. Next year I won't make the same mistake. Wow. You do realize Hans was pro-reset, despite all of us nasty Minmatar telling him it was stupid and against all precedents CCP had set? You do realize Hans doesn't support the full station lock-out? You do realize Hans isn't the puppet-master at CCP HQ? He can only do so much, haha.
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:46:00 -
[604] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it.
I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live. Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Honor Accelerando
One Point 0
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:52:00 -
[605] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it. I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live.
Jesus Vordak, it's embarrassing to see you working as Hans' mouth piece like his little bit c h. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
407
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:58:00 -
[606] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it. I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live.
Personally I am not in favor of anything that prevents the losing side from putting up a fight. Including station services. Gate fire from stations is fine because that doesn't effect fighting in plexes.
Long flip times just favor the side that can get a blob. Shorter flip times would favor hit and run small gangs. The shorter flip times also brought about more pvp in and around plexes.
Anyway I wrote a seperate thread on this issue with a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
407
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 02:15:00 -
[607] - Quote
Honor Accelerando wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it. I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live. Jesus Vordak, it's embarrassing to see you working as Hans' mouth piece like his little bit c h.
I think this comment is pretty ridiculous. Although I disagree with hans on the timer issue I am sure he did hear a request for longer timers from many pilots in faction war. He was just doing his job in representing them. Its just that this was a knee jerk reaction instead of something thought through.
Hans is working hard to represent faction war and low sec pilots who want frequent pvp. I am convinced of that. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 04:02:00 -
[608] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it. I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live. Personally I am not in favor of anything that prevents the losing side from putting up a fight. Including station services. Gate fire from stations is fine because that doesn't effect fighting in plexes. Long flip times just favor the side that can get a blob. Shorter flip times would favor hit and run small gangs. The shorter flip times also brought about more pvp in and around plexes. Anyway I wrote a seperate thread on this issue with a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons.
Wouldn't shorter flip times mean that neither of the factions would base in the warzone? Both sides would be at an immense risk to having their system flipped while they slept. I see this as discouraging any kind of lowsec-living lifestyle. At least with the longer, drawn out battles for a system you'd be getting a) a chance to fight for your system without having to set alarms or not sleep and b) you'd have a lot more fighting happening in plex every day as each side tries to 1up the other on system capturing/defending progress.
@San Severina aka Honor Accelerando: why are you still mad that Hans (and the rest of AUTOZ) kicked (and don't like) Missy Lorelai because he a) stole from us and b) tried to blackmail us?
Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 04:34:00 -
[609] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:You do realize Hans was pro-reset ... Reset is irrelevant, he should have dug his heels in when they said they wanted to implement draconian consequences without first addressing the damn balance .. since he didn't he must have an agenda as of yet undisclosed.
Always get this warm and fuzzy feeling (and a small psychotic tick) when a person I supported/voted/promoted turns out to be something entirely different
|
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
234
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 04:43:00 -
[610] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote:You do realize Hans was pro-reset ... Reset is irrelevant, he should have dug his heels in when they said they wanted to implement draconian consequences without first addressing the damn balance .. since he didn't he must have an agenda as of yet undisclosed. Always get this warm and fuzzy feeling (and a small psychotic tick) when a person I supported/voted/promoted turns out to be something entirely different
... You are insane. /discussion Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
|
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 07:55:00 -
[611] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Because those high sec Level 4 LP's are a fixed value, and can never be made MORE valuable through a coordinated PvP campaign. LP earned in FW, however, can buy a substantially greater number of items if you work with your faction to drive the LP store cost back down and cash them out at that point in time.
I predict fail. There will have to be a substantial infusion of players into the losing side for them to "quickly make headway". First, it'll be very difficult to take systems that are more than one jump from a basing system due to plexing mechanics (reshipping issues due to station lockout, takes at least 40 hours to flip undefended system). Second, they won't have the isk income to compete. While a counterattack mIght lead to more fights for a while, the side that is down will soon lose to attrition. If this gets to a 4: 1/4 ratio, then Intaki L4 agent = 1.5*16* High Sec Caldari Agent in LP and isk payout. Coordinate all you want, winning side has the means to leroy 24 times as many ships (in value) into the battle as losing side does. (The side leroying 24 times as many ships in value is going to win more than lose, btw). My guess is that the Gallente/Caldari front settles on a 2: 1/2 ratio in which case the difference in payouts will be a factor of five or more. Good luck Bolster! Go ahead and respond or not. I could be wrong, let new system play out, yada yada yada.....
unfortunately u r right ... good thing is I allways had other sources of isk too
the good thing is that pvp active corps like IBS will get decent amount of lps from kills (so far calculated it can counter the loss on fw missions + addition on plexing), but still will be in bitchy situation. 2 days ago we had decent fights in raka plexes while we were able to quickly reship when we lost the first round (my fcing fault ) and win at the end. In case I will not have a chance to reship >>> no fight at all, because I will not even try in the first round. however all this leads to more blobs, because blob (preferably nano alfa blobs) will protect u and u can quickly gank targets and gtfo in case jesus counter blob arrived (and u turn on ur batphone and ask judas blob to counter jesus blob, while the jesus blob FC will tun on his bathone and ... after few rounds of holly batman server will crash and nobody will play FW because fights for plexes will be irelevant). and yeah ... if i will be on next fanfest I want fair boxing fight with that CCP idiot who came with this ideas. if he would be interested we can go kick box. IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free>>>free ****>>>????
Public ch.: Basterds on vacation-á |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
408
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 14:06:00 -
[612] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is now saying station lockouts are tolerable.
edit: BTW I do not think hans was biased to minmatar. I just think he has been biased toward ccps and csm 6s plans to make this null sec light. Specifically his advocating Station lockouts and long flip times.
Well, he is definitely pro-long flip times. A lot of people are. It makes sense, at least with the hefty penalty of station lockouts. To my understanding, he was trying to get CCP to reconsider the station lockout but they were dead set on it. I still think (and a lot of people in Minmatar) that the full lockout is going to be super detrimental to the warzone. I'm personally in favor of denial of station services, but hopefully CCP will be able to get a lot of feedback from the Tranq. server and maybe reconsider the full lockout once it goes live. Personally I am not in favor of anything that prevents the losing side from putting up a fight. Including station services. Gate fire from stations is fine because that doesn't effect fighting in plexes. Long flip times just favor the side that can get a blob. Shorter flip times would favor hit and run small gangs. The shorter flip times also brought about more pvp in and around plexes. Anyway I wrote a seperate thread on this issue with a more detailed analysis of the pros and cons. Wouldn't shorter flip times mean that neither of the factions would base in the warzone?
Its the opposite. I would leave my several plexing ships in the war zone if I knew I would have some ability to flip the system and unlock them should the system get flipped when I sleep.
If I knew that if the minmatar completely ignored the plexing for and hour I could then flip the system in that time I wouldn't mind so much having ships locked out. More importantly it would be better if the minmatar reacted within the hour but didn't have time to get their blob together so we might have some decent fights as pilots come rolling in.
Shorter flip times means I would know with a carefully planned attack that I could unlcock them again despite being outnumbered overall. In other words I would feel I have some control over my own fortunes.
Now I have no control.
Vordak Kallager wrote: Both sides would be at an immense risk to having their system flipped while they slept. I see this as discouraging any kind of lowsec-living lifestyle. At least with the longer, drawn out battles for a system you'd be getting a) a chance to fight for your system without having to set alarms or not sleep and b) you'd have a lot more fighting happening in plex every day as each side tries to 1up the other on system capturing/defending progress.
I am not some noob that thinks just because I sign in I will be able to turn the tides on my own. I have been in arzad and my being there doesn't matter. If I run a plex they will show up with 3 different ships to counter my ship. And they weren't noobs that I could fight with those odds. Even if I could manage some sort of surprise atttack it would only work for an hour or 2 at best before the minmatar blob would come. Its not going to work for seven hours let alone forty!
When rkk came and fought for the minmatar there was nothing amarr could really do to prevent them from taking systems - if they chose to do that. (luckilly it didn't matter at the time so they didn't take them all) If a null sec alliance decides for whatever reason to start taking systems they will and the other side won't be able to do anything to stop them in this system with long timers. Why? Because this long flip time system favors the side that can keep the biggest blob focused on a grind the longest. It has nothing to do with small scale pvp. This is null sec lite.
You say longer flip times will lead to longer drawn out battles. No they won't. The battlles won't be any longer than if the flip time was shorter. The button orbitting will be longer and more drawn out. But there will be much less battling per plex.
You assume everyone is going to sign in within 24 hours or something. I may not sign in to protect my space in a 3 or 4 days. Given my family life that is not likely to change. So the idea that I can have "an opportunity to fight for my space" is just foolish and assumes everyone can sign in every 24 hours.
I may not be able to sign in often but it would be nice if I felt I could accomplish something in that time. But now I know I can't whatever side has the bigger blob will just undue whatever I can accomplish.
So why not make sure my side has the bigger blob? Well I am a casual player of this game. I play the game to be a combat pilot not to be in the airforce with an office job as a recruiter.
Maybe those in the big blob mentality will say "I don't want some small group to come and be able to flip a system unless I have several hours to get my big ass fleet ready and drive them off."
I can just say well since the flip times are short for me, they are short for you too. It won't take so long for you to flip it back with your blob so its no big deal. In the mean time people will be having allot more fights when there some sense of urgency. Having a system where one side does not even need to react in the slightest way for 40 hours creates no urgency. Hence no one will come into that system to try to slow down the plexing before they show up with their overwelming force.
Seriously I just want people to think about this issue. Rather than having these posts spread out all over the forums I would prefer that the reasons people give for longer or shorter flip times be posted in the thread I made for that purpose. I realize many people don't think this is a big deal but I really think it is. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 17:34:00 -
[613] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:... You are insane. /discussion Insane .. awakened ..potato-tomato.
Just another politician wannabe corrupted by the system into which he is thrust .. had expected him to last for more than few weeks though, but that's the Matar for you
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 18:37:00 -
[614] - Quote
Nah, I think insane is about right. There's nothing any CSM member can do to force CCP to do or not do if they set their mind on it. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 18:41:00 -
[615] - Quote
Heh. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
414
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 18:51:00 -
[616] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Because those high sec Level 4 LP's are a fixed value, and can never be made MORE valuable through a coordinated PvP campaign. LP earned in FW, however, can buy a substantially greater number of items if you work with your faction to drive the LP store cost back down and cash them out at that point in time.
I predict fail. There will have to be a substantial infusion of players into the losing side for them to "quickly make headway". First, it'll be very difficult to take systems that are more than one jump from a basing system due to plexing mechanics (reshipping issues due to station lockout, takes at least 40 hours to flip undefended system). Second, they won't have the isk income to compete. While a counterattack mIght lead to more fights for a while, the side that is down will soon lose to attrition. If this gets to a 4: 1/4 ratio, then Intaki L4 agent = 1.5*16* High Sec Caldari Agent in LP and isk payout. Coordinate all you want, winning side has the means to leroy 24 times as many ships (in value) into the battle as losing side does. (The side leroying 24 times as many ships in value is going to win more than lose, btw). My guess is that the Gallente/Caldari front settles on a 2: 1/2 ratio in which case the difference in payouts will be a factor of five or more. Good luck Bolster! Go ahead and respond or not. I could be wrong, let new system play out, yada yada yada.....
After the winners and losers shake out a bit ccp is asking people this question: Do you want more money or less money?
Am I suppose to be excited to find out how players will answer this question?
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. The mechanics are very well suited for a large null sec alliance to come and do just that. They can easilly quell any opposition just like in sov null sec.
But for each individual player entering faction war the question will be do you want more money or less. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:17:00 -
[617] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote:unfortunately u r right ... good thing is I allways had other sources of isk too the good thing is that pvp active corps like IBS will get decent amount of lps from kills (so far calculated it can counter the loss on fw missions + addition on plexing), but still will be in bitchy situation. 2 days ago we had decent fights in raka plexes while we were able to quickly reship when we lost the first round (my fcing fault ) and win at the end. In case I will not have a chance to reship >>> no fight at all, because I will not even try in the first round. however all this leads to more blobs, because blob (preferably nano alfa blobs) will protect u and u can quickly gank targets and gtfo in case jesus counter blob arrived (and u turn on ur batphone and ask judas blob to counter jesus blob, while the jesus blob FC will tun on his bathone and ... after few rounds of holly batman server will crash and nobody will play FW because fights for plexes will be irelevant). and yeah ... if i will be on next fanfest I want fair boxing fight with that CCP idiot who came with this ideas. if he would be interested we can go kick box.
The problem isn't the amount of LP you'll get, the problem will be the cost in the LP store to buy things with that LP if your side is losing.
It is true that over time, the losing sides items will become more expensive and the winning sides items less expensive due to supply pressure which will balance ISK/hr a little. However, the winning side should have it easier because as price lowers, aggregate demand increases and vice-versa. |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:22:00 -
[618] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. The mechanics are very well suited for a large null sec alliance to come and do just that. They can easilly quell any opposition just like in sov null sec.
.
Fearmongering at its best. Reminds me of all the fearmongering people did when CCP introduced Alliances and said that various nullsec alliances would come and ruin the FW sandbox. Puhleeez....
C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:33:00 -
[619] - Quote
And btw Cearain- If you really want to fear monger, do it like this;
There's been secret conversations that the Minmatar will bring down the Gallente and help capture the remaining few systems that the Amarr have thus killing off the Amarr.
:) C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
416
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:53:00 -
[620] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:Cearain wrote:
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. The mechanics are very well suited for a large null sec alliance to come and do just that. They can easilly quell any opposition just like in sov null sec.
.
Fearmongering at its best. Reminds me of all the fearmongering people did when CCP introduced Alliances and said that various nullsec alliances would come and ruin the FW sandbox. Puhleeez....
I am not afraid of this happening at all. I like faction war and low sec to remain in a sandbox, and generally I am against things like not allowing supercaps in low sec.
I am just pointing out the proposed mechanics make it easier for a null sec alliance to win this war. I still don't think the benefits are great enough for a null sec alliance to really focus in and do that for any reason other than to just "show how great they are and make some profits." But some alliances will do things, like burn jita, that aren't economic in the short term for publicity reasons that may pay off in the longer term.
Do you think if a large alliance decided to put all their effort into winning an inferno style faction war they wouldn't succeed? Do you think their methods would be much different than the current method of having blobs go grinding one system after another?
What would your strategies be? I can tell you if the flip times were much shorter and I was allowed to dock in the faction war zone I would love to have some large alliance come to fight. Now I wouldn't win, but I would keep fighting and have a great time. So would allot of small gang pvpers. But with the long flip times and no docking rules inferno brings, resistance would be futile. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:58:00 -
[621] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:And btw Cearain- If you really want to fear monger, do it like this;
There's been secret conversations that the Minmatar will bring down the Gallente and help capture the remaining few systems that the Amarr have thus killing off the Amarr.
:)
WHY ARE YOU LEAKING OUR SUPER SEKRET INTEL!?!?!?111eleven |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2353
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 20:12:00 -
[622] - Quote
chatgris wrote: WHY ARE YOU LEAKING OUR SUPER SEKRET INTEL!?!?!?111eleven
It's ok, I also leaked the location of our secret bases in my latest blog post. No hiding now!! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
416
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 20:20:00 -
[623] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:And btw Cearain- If you really want to fear monger, do it like this;
There's been secret conversations that the Minmatar will bring down the Gallente and help capture the remaining few systems that the Amarr have thus killing off the Amarr.
:)
I would fear the minmatar serving up the gallente, as much as I would fear them serving up a platter of cream puffs.
But all this talk makes me hungry. Excuse me while I have my minmatar help serve me up a sandwich.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
202
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 22:09:00 -
[624] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. .
They won't have the standings to pull it off. But let 'em come. Moar fun. |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 22:24:00 -
[625] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. .
They won't have the standings to pull it off. But let 'em come. Moar fun.
The most that might happen is some 0.0 entity might come into the warzone and lock it down, but I don't see any major sov-holder ever joining FW due to the aforementioned problem of standings. Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 22:52:00 -
[626] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:
The only thing that needs to play out is which side is going to be the winning side or whether some large alliance, will show how great they are, and decide to grind a losing faction to a winning one so they can profit. .
They won't have the standings to pull it off. But let 'em come. Moar fun.
I wouldn't be so sure... you only need a 0.5 standing, and caldari (especially with the patch that added more caldari agents to spread mission runners out) is a very popular choice for pve with the best agents, close proximity to Jita etc...
EDIT: I don't think any large nullsec entity would bother, but I don't think that the standings for some popular pve factions would be a surefire lock against them. |
RougeOperator
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
751
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 00:19:00 -
[627] - Quote
When the fun created by the NEW SHINY stuff in the expansions ends after a month we will be stuck with how bad this is it will be too late.
Obvious problems being if one faction dominates a zone.
FW is not like 0.0 its full of casual or semi casual players.
Calling it now people will realize how dumb it all was a few months from now. Even those talking about how great the fighting is right now. That wont last people.
No one is looking at the longview on this. Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence"-á |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
416
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 01:25:00 -
[628] - Quote
Reikoku joined faction war for Minmatar.
If I had to guess whether some major null sec force will join faction war in the next year I would bet one will. By "major force" I just mean one that will single handedly change the course of the war.
I do think the least likely faction that they would join will be gallente. Just because it seems allot of high sec missions always went against gallente and it would be hard to get the standing and because it would limit access to jita. Sorry Gallente.
But I do anticipate something like a Reikoku coming in to a faction. Whether they will be able to roll over everyone or whether they will just end up in allot of good fights depends on what the mechanics of faction war are like at the time. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
175
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 06:10:00 -
[629] - Quote
Reikoku aren't going trough their best times, same as Dark Rising which joined Gallente. Unless someone like Solar, -A-, PL, NCdot or others of that caliber join, FW can handle it easly. Hell, we scored the ocasional gank or win in subcaps even against some of those entities when we brought our A game.
More PVP (even against larger entitiies) won't be what kills FW, forced PVE will accomplish that. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
436
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 06:55:00 -
[630] - Quote
Quote:Lock out Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly Likes received: 175
I can't be the only one who noticed this. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |