Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ahazu Sagam
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 24eme Legion Etrangere
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
The system upgrades on sisi for fw systems are more or less useless.
Current state on sisi: - 6 levels - level 1-5: medical clones cost 10% less, +1 production slot, brokers fee reduced by 10% - than an buffer
Wouldnt it be more usefull to be that way:
level 1: - reduced reapair costs (30%) for your milita - denies access to enemy agents
level 2: - reduced medical clone costs (50%) for your milita - allows the creation of jump clones, not based on standing, for you milita
level 3: - removes access to station or enemys and neutrals with standing below -2.0 to you faction - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's
level 4: - reduced material costs for production (5%) - reduced waste from reprocessing (5%)
level 5: - buffer |
Kamelox
Szwadron Frozen Synapse
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 12:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sure it will be better , but as we all know CCP don`t like to do things properly... thay always came up with F****** useless ideas instead do something right from the beginning... |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
PvP/War related benefits instead of carebear fluff .. are you mad!?!
I think the reason why the "bonuses" are so anaemic is that they are are afraid of making it too good .. bet they plan to iterate on it as that is the new favourite catchphrase. What you suggest might be implemented next year or whenever they get fed up with our whining again ....
On a side note: Cyno-jammers have no business in lowsec. Vanilla capitals are not an issue as they are 'small' enough to die fast'ish and doesn't require special tools and massive suicide fleets to kill. Remove immunity from supers when they operate away from null and prohibit bridging into Empire .. solves all my issues with supers as a FW monkey |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:The system upgrades on sisi for fw systems are more or less useless.
Current state on sisi: - 6 levels - level 1-5: medical clones cost 10% less, +1 production slot, brokers fee reduced by 10% - than a buffer
Wouldnt it be more usefull to be that way:
level 1: - reduced reapair costs (30%) for your milita - denies access to enemy agents
level 2: - reduced medical clone costs (50%) for your milita - allows the creation of jump clones, not based on standing, for you milita
level 3: - removes access to station for enemys and neutrals with standing below -2.0 to your faction - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
level 4: - reduced material costs for production (5%) - reduced waste from reprocessing (5%)
level 5: - buffer
Take out the bit about station lockouts and I would probably support this. Well I would if I knew what a buffer was. What is a buffer? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ahazu Sagam
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 24eme Legion Etrangere
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:49:00 -
[5] - Quote
Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 13:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system.
Thanks
I was on sisi on the second day but I don't recall seeing these mechanics. Did they change whats on sisi? Or did I not look in the right spot?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
I don't want to have Super Capitals to be unable to fight in Low-Sec, i have been on both the receiving end and part of a number of Titan Bridge operations... they have their use just as they do in Null-Sec.
Realistically the issue most in Militia have is unlike Null-Sec, we have no viable means to prevent it. This is more true as we are unable to use Bombs and Warp Disruption Bubbles, now I'm not saying we should get these back... but neither do I want to see Capitals (even if it is just Supers) disappear from Low-Sec.
It is my hope that Sovereignty being brought to Faction Warfare, would echo how it works there. The main issue I noticed being mentioned at Fanfest, was "Who controls these systems?" ... this particularly was in question to a Cynosural Jammer.
Personally I think the best solution would be that the Militia has a Dummy Executive Corporation, think of it as a form of Council; where all of the CEOs in the Militia are automatically added as members; each with a single share. We could then vote for a Leader, who has the job of maintaining the Sov... the Leader would have the ability to assign Operators to individual systems / i-Hubs as a means of deligating responsibilities.
This wouldn't just be a good concept in terms of providing a real structure of control instead of relying on automatic systems, but actually would provide a good forum for communication between all of the Corporations. While I know that this already happens to a limited degree, having an official place to discuss and talk about issues would help provide more united Militias.
While I know that Caldari Militia is probably the worst case of this right now, there other militias all have 2-3 Alliances that don't exactly see eye-to-eye or get along. Having a mechanic in the game where it would be beneficial to work together or play the politics game (where it can be kept without bringing the whole militia in to it) really can be nothing but a good thing.
I also think there should be some systems, such-as Intaki (part of the Caldari-Gallente low-sec) that remain Neutral Ground; rather than being part of one Sov or the other.
Honestly CCP should be looking at Sov within Faction Warfare as a way of blueprinting and testing mechanics in an on-going war situation, so that they can eventually roll those out in to Null-Sec to improve the situation there. Don't get me wrong Null-Sec Sov is a damn sight better than the original Territorial Game, but it still isn't exactly a fantastic solution... it is however a good basis, getting it right in Faction Warfare especially with the Dust links; will definately go a long way to provide a better system for Sov Space imo atleast. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
403
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
RavenTesio wrote: Honestly CCP should be looking at Sov within Faction Warfare as a way of blueprinting and testing mechanics in an on-going war situation, so that they can eventually roll those out in to Null-Sec to improve the situation there. Don't get me wrong Null-Sec Sov is a damn sight better than the original Territorial Game, but it still isn't exactly a fantastic solution... it is however a good basis, getting it right in Faction Warfare especially with the Dust links; will definately go a long way to provide a better system for Sov Space imo atleast.
CCP almost certainly agrees with you on this. That is why as Ahazu Sagam says: "About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it..." even though those in faction war are generally not in favor of it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
FIRST GENERAL
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[
I fully endorse this change. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping htem here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2320
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
These are some great ideas!! The good news is that this is really just the first pass at upgrades and improvements to Faction Warfare, CCP will be adding more features like the ones you're describing, as well as adjusting the problems with the initial Inferno release in the days ahead.
Brainstorming ideas for more worthwhile upgrades is very helpful, and the CSM will be sure to pass the popular ones on to the developers. We've already been stumping for a few of them, and CCP has a lot in store for us beyond May 22. Keep up the good suggestions! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lock out wrote:Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. Still not convinced the solution is to add jammers to LS, would be more elegant to include a restriction in whatever changes they end up doing to the cyno's themselves. Examples: - Spool-up, - Limit of say 20 Caps or 10 Supers per cyno (with cyno's unable to be fitted to capitals). - Long'ish recalibration after jumping - etc.
Trick is to still allow for a full drop but only if the jumpers are extraordinarily well prepared, otherwise they have to take serious some risks.. rather than present where it is merely "log-on, press jump".
|
Popiejopie
Mentally Unstable Enterprises Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
i like the chages u propose, gives a real feeling of control for the work you put into it. The chages for control of a system that they want to implement now is of no benefit at all. Some more determind changes will definatly stir up faction warfare again. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
61
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:10:00 -
[14] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Lock out wrote:Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. Still not convinced the solution is to add jammers to LS, would be more elegant to include a restriction in whatever changes they end up doing to the cyno's themselves. Examples: - Spool-up, - Limit of say 20 Caps or 10 Supers per cyno (with cyno's unable to be fitted to capitals). - Long'ish recalibration after jumping - etc. Trick is to still allow for a full drop but only if the jumpers are extraordinarily well prepared, otherwise they have to take serious some risks.. rather than present where it is merely "log-on, press jump".
First, 10 supers is still an advantage that will instawin you most lowsec fights, not even mentioning 20 pantheon archons. And second, what would stop ppl bringing 5 cynos on field and bringing 50 supers in that way ? Low sec is not all FW, there would still be plenty low sec that wouldn't be affected by cynojamming and even in FW it would be a costly upgrade so it wouldn't be in every system. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2320
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:Buffer(reserve) is extra LP in the HUB that does nothing; it creates a buffer to keep the highest upgrade running when people start plexing (because you lose lp in your HUB when people finish a plex). A single small plex would otherwise disable your highest upgrade, just have a look on sisi.
About this station lockout stuff. I think ccp do not want to get rid off it, and this should be a fair compromise between people that like and dislike it. Because you opponent's need to actually spend LP (aka isk) to prevent you from docking and not only once, when you plex in this system.
Now this certainly is another angle the CSM can take up regarding the station docking issue, possibly turning it into an upgrade rather than a default mechanic. I disagree though with making it the first upgrade possible, because the upgrades are cheap enough this still means that most systems will suffer from lockout, which doesn't go very far in making it less of an issue than it is.
We've already discussed things like sentry fire and denial of services, or limiting docking to FW stations only (It still makes little sense to me that the Quafe station I live in would boot me if the Amarr took Sovereignty), but as you can see CCP is pretty committed to trying this out in its current form since it made it to SiSi.
Depending on how players adapt in the coming war post May 22, moving station lockout to a high-level upgrade could certainly be a viable fix if it becomes a game-breaking problem. We'll be sure to discuss this with the developers. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
ForU2nV
Assisted Genocide Unprovoked Aggression
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. |
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
78
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
+ 1 for cyno jammers in low sec. |
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:52:00 -
[18] - Quote
ForU2nV wrote:Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. Also who would be in charge of ON/OFF 'ing these cyno jammers? Would the space completely shut down to any capital that doesnt belong to that militia?
Well. at least then we'd have a chance to fight PL and NCdot in subcaps. And last time Gal Mil fought PL in subcaps in Nisuwa, Gal Mil won , the only reason they couln;t hold the field beeing that after losing 20 or so Rokhs and couple chimeras, PL brought in the titans. SO in that regard, getting a chance to fight PL or otherbig entitites in subcaps would level the playing field and would make for great pvp.
As for who would be in charge, I assume a mechanic could be designed, like the corp that had most damage on flipping the i-hub would be the one able to anchor the cyno jammer in that system. |
Drackarn
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Cyno jammers +1! http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.com/ |
Lord Morgo
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1 |
|
Akuma Nei
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (DEFINITELY!!!!)
I fully endorse this change.
+1 |
LizzardCUT
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change.
+ 1 for cyno jammers in low sec. |
RobekPL
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:07:00 -
[23] - Quote
+1 cynojammers
|
ForU2nV
Assisted Genocide Unprovoked Aggression
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lock out wrote:ForU2nV wrote:Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware. This is a good idea, all that will happen tho, is NC and PL will just blow up ALL of your POS's on a regular basis. You will attract far more negative attention to FW players overall, from such entities, instead of occasionally having SC's dropped on you. Also who would be in charge of ON/OFF 'ing these cyno jammers? Would the space completely shut down to any capital that doesnt belong to that militia? Well. at least then we'd have a chance to fight PL and NCdot in subcaps. And last time Gal Mil fought PL in subcaps in Nisuwa, Gal Mil won , the only reason they couln;t hold the field beeing that after losing 20 or so Rokhs and couple chimeras, PL brought in the titans. SO in that regard, getting a chance to fight PL or otherbig entitites in subcaps would level the playing field and would make for great pvp. As for who would be in charge, I assume a mechanic could be designed, like the corp that had most damage on flipping the i-hub would be the one able to anchor the cyno jammer in that system.
But then this issue could be reversed on none factional warfare entities, For Example: FW - take system control and initialise system wide cyno jam, they would have there own supers and capitals in system with the cynojammers giving them an unfair advantage against an attacker.
We all know how much of a force multiplier a triage archon is, when supporting a subcap fleet. imagine a 10 man RR pantheon fleet sat ontop of a cyno jammer providing a continous rep. youd never kill it with an average subcap fleet. Dont get me wrong the ideas are good but there needs to be a balance.
A possible idea would be to lock out a few systems in game permanently to any entities that are not involved in factional warfare for a militia. but again this seperates the FW peeps, from the rest of eve. Simple matter of fact is, it is going to be incredibly difficult to make a 'fair' balance to all parties on this issue. There are viable counters in game right now to people dropping 20 supers on you, providing you have the manpower and the knowhow. |
EXOCET11
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Like ... Yes.. |
PC5
Szwadron Frozen Synapse
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:18:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 Cyno jamer and other good ideas |
Clodim
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
PC5 wrote:+1 Cyno jamer and other good ideas +1 |
Loren Gallen
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:23:00 -
[28] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
+1
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2324
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lord Morgo wrote:Give lowsec a boost vs 0.0 alliances! Cyno jammers +1
Rest assured, this was my FAVORITE idea on the table, but CCP made a wise decision not to rush this. Implemented right it will allow militias to have a lot of fun engagements free from 0.0 hot drops. Implemented wrong, and you can guarantee Goonswarm or PL will be flooding Faction Warfare with alts in order to manipulate the warzone for their own purposes. Whether this is a desired effect or not will be something the community should be discussing, because this feature is definitely a possibility for a future iteration. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Monticore D'Muertos
Goats With Frickin' Rocket Launchers
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:42:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lock out wrote:FIRST GENERAL wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:T
level 3: - allows cynojammers to be onlined at milita POS's (maybe)
[ I fully endorse this change. Same. Getting dropepd by 30 NCdot supers like we were last week doesn't do any good to attracting pilots to FW or keeping them here, instead just makes the go back to high sec in a hurry. Cyno jammer upgrades would be a big improvement in making FW a viable environment for pilots looking to improve, and also would make a more realistic 0.0 lite as intended in the Inferno expansion as far as I am aware.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |