Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tzar'rim
Reckless Corsairs
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 18:54:00 -
[31]
I feel an alarmclock relic raid coming up.
|
Zeknichov
Life. Universe. Everything. Wrath.
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 19:31:00 -
[32]
Factional warfare should not be something players can choose to avoid if they wish to. It should affect them whether they choose to partake in it or not, the best a player can do is choose to what degree it will affect within the philosophy of risk vs reward.
Unfortunately EVE has for the most part taken turns for the worse as time has gone on. Yes CCP has made great changes since 2003 but the games core fundamental ideals from 2003 have changed for the worse. Although it's too soon to come to any conclusions and speculation at this point is stupid, I still wish to state my displeasure of FW if it is anything like WoW battlegrounds.
|
Avel Kereka
Amarr The Aegis Militia Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 19:58:00 -
[33]
I'm not sure how much of the OP is accurate, but having the ability to actually fight for certain values is an excellent idea. PVP currently sucks, I mean the whole "local chat" tactic alone is ridiculous. Technically, we can't suicide ram and overall our options are pretty limited when we come across a clearly superior ship/force, which is what most engagements are. Tactics really only come into play in extended fleet engagements, everything else is pretty much getting webbed and blown up in a few seconds. RP-wise, 0.0 is useless, and I won't miss it if people flock to factional warfare and leave all the "tough guys" crying for attention in some barren pocket of space nobody really cares about.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that a bit of structure won't hurt EVE. We don't make much of a difference now anyway. A game is a game, and that means that it has limitations developers put on it so players have something to do in a controlled environment. We've got these great factions, and sometimes I find the forums more interesting than the game itself. Do I care if player corp X beats corp Y, then gets beaten by corp A three days later? No. It means nothing. Do I care if the Amarrian Empire takes 5 systems and enslaves millions, enriching me in the process? Maybe giving rise to some nice news stories, and fleet battles I actually feel like I'm contributing in? Yes. I'm sure CCP is paying attention to what other companies are doing--Mythic comes to mind--and they're looking at how to implement controlled PVP in a way that makes it fun for the whole spectrum of players, not not just those willing to schedule Friday night patrols in top-of-the-line ships.
|
Carebearingtonfieldville
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 20:08:00 -
[34]
Yeah their website doesn't let you in if you have cookies disabled. **** them
|
Dealth Striker
Caldari Striker Ltd
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 20:35:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Red Harvest Edited by: Red Harvest on 26/04/2008 15:38:32
Originally by: Indigo Johnson As said, what Factioanl Warfare should be
- No holds barred
- Everyone opts in, there is no "on the fence", if you play eve you are part of the conflict
- Every system, bar a core group of systems, has the potential to be swung to an opposing side. The process by which this happens could be a number of ways to many to list in this post.
- Mission running should not determing factional warfare, player v player kills should trump mission contributions to system changes
Will this be it, probably not, will give CCP benefit of the doubt and see if, on release, it isn't just a huge clone of WoW BGs.
NPC grind for faction = boring repetitive drivel imo, hope thats not the corner stone of factional warfare.
Sry but thats total BS! Most of the empire ppl are happy with how it is, otherwise they wouldnt be in empire nor playing EVE at all. Forcing them into PvP (the ship vs ship kind) would just scare most of them away. Giving ppl a choice and putting it in a controlled enviroment is really the best way to bridge both sides. Hopefully CCP will make the system watertight to prevent ppl from sabotaging their own side. (how about you cant shoot ppl in your own team? just to prevent some idiots from having "funny" ideas and the pirates to sabotage their own teams for the loot.)
PS: So far so good and putting FW into new regions is the best news about it!
LOL - that is truly a funny statement - thank you for the good laugh ---------------------
Communication is Key! |
Ehronn
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 20:41:00 -
[36]
Caldari = Albs?!
WOOT
-----------------------
Dysfunctional Playground |
000Hunter000
Gallente Missiles 'R' Us
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 20:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Zeknichov Factional warfare should not be something players can choose to avoid if they wish to.
ALERT!!! We have an incomming cloaked 'lets force pvp on the carebears' thread on our hands!!!
SO yeah this game is about not beeing 100% safe where ever u go, but forcing a permanent wardec on everyone? erm.. no???
Just make it like this, corps can decide whether or not to participate on the factional warfare thingy, if they agree upon it, they are now free to attack and be attacked by corps who decided to join the other sides cause instead. If u wanna partake urselves but ur corp doesn't ur always free to quit and either join a corp who does or start ur own.
Personally i also think only corps who have a certain amount of standing to a faction should be able to participate, call me crazy but i think standing should finally have a real purpose and one for pvp no less |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:02:00 -
[38]
Whine, whine, whine. That's all anyone ever does on these forums. But since its so popular, I'll add my two cents.
Why on gods green earth do I want more 0.0 pvp? I'm not a big fan of POS sieges and the old, primary pop, primary, pop, lag... lag... primary... lag... pop... ctd... log in... oh look I'm in a station 50 jumps away.
I'm also not a fan of 50 man dictor camps, zooming 10 man nano-gangs that run away at the first sign of a Huginn or Rapier, or being camped into an outpost because 90% of the 30 people in station with me won't undock to take on the 6 guys camping the station.
No. No more 0.0 pvp. ANYTHING but more 0.0 pvp. I want my small roaming gangs back. That's what I want. That your complaining that FW won't be like 0.0 is ******* ridiculous.
-Karlemgne |
Ruoska
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:30:00 -
[39]
Here's a short and crude version what I was dreaming up one day as FW...
You can become an enlisted pilot for the faction. But unlike RvB, your civilian identity masked by electronic means and by the fact that you are not flying your own ship, but are given a ship along with the fittings by the faction, according to your capabilities. You would simply be shown as W1M3 etc. code (Wing 1, Member 3).
So, how would you fight then? You would register at the navy station for active duty with your best quess for your availability (duration) of the session.
Now here would be the real beef of the FW, a serious server side logic that manages these schedules and availabilities along with player locations and creates "missions".
Let's say a server sees 12 people in Caldari ranks in active duty for an hour or more estimated availability and 16 at Gallente side. Next the server does very rough ranking based on skills invested in combat skills and selects 12 from the 16 available in Gallente side to more or less match what Caldari side has, or atleast attempts to close the gap somewhat.
All these pilots are sent urgent evemail along with popup message to scramble for a fight. Pilots would arrive at given time and given ships and fittings that they cannot beef up themselves and become these gray figures only indentified by W<x>M<y> type of name, and undocked along with NPC fleet manager (note, not boss). Gang/Fleet would have been put up automatically, and the Fleet Manager would warp and jump (!) automatically the fleet to operations area.
This time would be made available for players to elect (simple most votes or whatever) a FC amongst themselves or appointed by the fleet manager as the most combat SP character if no voting happens.
Extensive library of military operations would be used and dynamic scenario generated based on general win/lose, attacking/defending situations for various purposes, assets or just plain head-to-head action. This would affect handed out ships and the call for duty explanations and evemail, naturally.
Shooting happens, strategic objectives destroyed of defended (remote repping, jamming attackers, you name it) if any present and finally when no one remains alive or in the battlefield a victor is declared. Alternatively all ammo is expended and status quo is detected and both parties withdraw by Fleet Manager NPC's command and the fight is declared draw.
Large battles can be supplemented with reinforcements from the available pool, when numbers become available and those that don't "fit" into a call for duty gain precedance point for the next calling, that way trying to ensure all players get roughly the equal changes to play.
Outcomes and their objectives, small and big, would reflect to control and intelligence assets of the faction and would dynamically change future fights when appropriate and would eventually cause even transferral of one systems ownership from one faction to another if resistent and long enough winnings are obtained by opposing faction. (security level of the system should dictate how hard it is to conqure)
This borderline insane rambling is just very short and VERY incomplete attempt to describe how I might have gone about realising FW into Eve... Apologies for inconhearent writing.
|
Ruoska
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 21:38:00 -
[40]
Now, trying to explain a few things;
Your civilian identity masked. Friends on opposite sides could not easily play foul play - especially if you don't see your own designation and are unable to give it out in TeamSpeak or similar. It would also go along with RP story, why would you be able to travel unmolested when not on duty/call...
NPC Fleet manager... well, have you ever flown in a gang with really new players? Trust me, you want this automated, so you get to the fight as a group to begin with...
Faction ships and not your own? Yes! I was in Red vs Blue and the best fights were those that were arranged in a fashion that both sides had even roughly the same forces. Regular PvP is rampant with one sided ganks already - why not try to go for semi-even fights for adrenalin pumping action for both sides? For that purpose, complex server side logic creates the fleets down to the ammo and scripts provided.
Doesn't cost people anything, so no one should benefit from them either, so no wrecks, no loot nor salvage.
Winners might be entitled for LP rewards at most, standings for duty would be granted for both sides at any rate.
...such is the state of my insanity...
|
|
Kilhu Emmek
Minmatar Redshift Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 22:02:00 -
[41]
Man, I don't know. Fleet combat's still hosed, there are still hundreds of nasty little bugs unfixed, and now we're gonna get factional warfare and have to choose sides based on that? And it hoses anyone who does "complex roleplay" where maybe they're working both sides against the middle or (like me) are mostly Minmatar/Gallente loyal but also run pretty deep with the Thukker/Syndicate corps.
I do not know, seriously.
One nice thing about it: we'll be able to blow up macroers, finally. I guess they'll get macroer guards, now. One step closer to a non-MMO at that point, too, I suppose.
Weird issues around this, to be sure. |
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 23:09:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 26/04/2008 23:09:34
Originally by: 000Hunter000 SO yeah this game is about not beeing 100% safe where ever u go, but forcing a permanent wardec on everyone? erm.. no???
To be honest, he's right.
While you shouldn't be safe from things like suicide ganking or wardecs against you from other corps, this should be opt-in. You should have the option to stay neutral in this fight. |
pherlopolus
Primal Directive 7-B
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 01:17:00 -
[43]
you know, i used to play sim city a bit, my favorit bit was reaping destruction on my city to see how it managed to recover all by itself.
i'd love it FW did have wide reaching impact on the whole of the eve galaxy, it should.
carebears will still be carebears, 0.0 people will still live in 0.0 and fight for space.
but in empire it would be great to be able to side with a faction, either signing up for a player faction army, or your corp aligning itself etc.
of course this should include you not being able to visit enemy space without a concordesc type response from faction navies (of course after a delay to enable you to recloak ;) )
people who want to war will be able to take a new steer on it, i dont ultimately think that more ships will get blown up, just differently.
i dont care how many people dont like RP, but can you imagine being under the fleet command of a ccp paid fleet commander, taking ownership of systems on behalf of your choen faction? medals?purple hearts?mentions in dispatches?
awesomeness!!
|
techzer0
IDLE GUNS
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 01:26:00 -
[44]
Death to amarr!!!
Oh and it will be a lot more than just a few noobs participating, I can guarantee that. I'm all for killing someone who supports different EVE ideals than me and will do anything I can to grief the crap outta them
I'm just waiting to see how it works out, heh |
Kyung Tsiung
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 02:41:00 -
[45]
Hmm interesting concept realy..and yet probably yet another opportunity for meta gaming gone wild
|
Mudrat
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 02:50:00 -
[46]
it's giong to be caldari achura vs. everyone else
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 04:09:00 -
[47]
I'd almost rather have ambulation.
On the bright side though if this does come about and my NPC faction can be attacked I guess I'll join/make a Player Corp to sit in :).
Without seeing all the associated data, it's difficult to know exactly what they plan. I'm not convinced it'll be a good move for the game but it could be. My greatest concern is that turning hi sec into a war zone may impede new player development causing new players to become discouraged and leave EVE. This would make it hard on the game to support itself longterm.
That said I'd really need to know a lot more about the expansion before I could pass judgment on it.
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 04:31:00 -
[48]
I'm strongly in favor of faction warfare system that has real impact on system ownership, system security, and players (such as inability to dock at hostile faction stations).
There is no doubt that such player driven game model is the most exciting to any serious gamer (casual gamers may not agreee).
However, there is 1 major problem that needs to be addressed with any such dynamic model:
How to deal with crisis situation? In other words - what to do when 1 side wins, dominates all opposing factions. Any system where winning and losing means something real - will make people in losing factions hurt bad.
This pain cannot be avoided. If you eliminate pain of defeat, you also make victory meaningless, and the whole game becomes not so interesting.
The only possible direction is to put a limit on suffering of the losing factions. Somehow, dynamic system needs to be reset when it reaches critical state.
So, how do we reset the system when 1 faction becomes overly dominating?
I think that is a very serious question that effects all future games, not just EVE. I think it's the next stage in evolution of massive multiplayer gaming. I'd like to hear some serious answers
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 04:39:00 -
[49]
It's "Empyrean". Not only does that article not spell it right, they don't even spell it consistently within the article. |
Diek Ran
Amarr Autonums
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 04:44:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kyra Felann It's "Empyrean". Not only does that article not spell it right, they don't even spell it consistently within the article.
Ask Jenny Spitfire how to spell it |
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 04:51:00 -
[51]
Now that I spent some time thinking about my own question (previous post), I realized that CCP is already on the edge of dynamic game model evolution.
Our 0.0 player empires are a perfect example of what faction warfare could be. We can learn quite a bit from player empires. The most obvious thing we learn from them is that when some empire loses badly, it disolves. New empires form all the time, old ones die. This is at the core of a dynamic game model.
But can that be applied to NPC factions? certainly not as they are done currently. This would be a headache.
Another thing we learn from 0.0 empires: when 1 empire becomes too powerful, a few weaker empires can ally together and fight against it. This is 2nd basic element of a dynamic game model. This element can be applied successfully to current NPC factions, tho have to be careful not to make it too artificial.
I think that in a truely dynamic faction warfare system, it would be impossible to have permanent NPC factions. A faction that loses badly has to be disolved. Something new can come up in its place. A faction that becomes too dominating should be split into new factions, thus providing a successful reset of the dynamic system. If done just right, it can all look very natural |
Kien Marekk
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 06:56:00 -
[52]
Sounds to stupid to be real.
Why the $%*^$%^ do we need 0.0 pvp in empire? Did CCP Ceo wake up one day "You know what, lets turn 0.0 pvp into the new lowsec, so spreadout u cant find anyone"
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 08:50:00 -
[53]
Well shooting POSes, OK Shooting POSes in Empire, no. I mean : without dreads ? 2isk
|
Theresa
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 10:27:00 -
[54]
It's about time.
This is best idea out of CCP ever.
We needed something to promote RPing and the general story.
|
Misanth
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 10:38:00 -
[55]
Got several questions/issues with this before it even comes.
* What is the point of FW? Apart from chosing side with something, I don't understand what the rewards would be. Similar to mission running for a corporation? You earn LP and drop standing with the hostiles?
* Will it affect Empire as we know it today? I have an alt in Empire and she doesn't exit the same region she is working in. If we start having players changing the owner of the station etc, I'm worried how that would affect her gameplay.
* New/young players. Will they automaticly, and perhaps by accident (not knowing better), start up a race and then get "locked up"? Say you start as Amarr and a miner, then with some experience of mission running etc you realise that you'd rather be a Gallente PvP pilot. Is it a risk your standings with Gallente will forever be ruined?
* How will it affect Empire trading? I mean if we can't transport things between all factions, we should see alot of Empire alts that people do for each factions purely for transporting. A full-time trader/transporter might now suddenly need 3 alts to support his whateverfaction-main?
* "sign up alone or sign up as corp".. how permanet will it be, and how much space will it concern? You know, I personally been moving around in whole EVE, I been parts of several corporations. Not because I didn't enjoy my current ones, rather because I needed something that better suited my playstyle. Would my ex-corp pull me into some war that would ruin my chances with a new corp? That'd be really really really horrible, totally ruin the game?
And if neither of the above happens, I wonder what the point is.. if it doesn't have a big impact on EVE, it is just another new mission-grinding faction to chose, right? Then it's only a question of what the reward is, nothing else.
Honestly I feel this is totall bullcrap, and I fail to understand why CCP want to implement it. I am only guesstimating tho, so I hope it pulls off to be something totally different that I failed to understand.
What it never can and never should affect tho, is players mobility. We need to be able to swap corps/areas if we need to. Corps die, corps change, players change. Killing off our mobility will kill off the game.
|
Kilhu Emmek
Minmatar Redshift Industrial
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 11:24:00 -
[56]
Something else that just occurred to me. All those missions where you leave, say, a Minmatar or Gallente station only to ferry soil or batteries or someone's toothbrush to ... and Amarr station two systems over?
I guess those are all gonna need a fix.
Might be time to train advanced pew pew command V. --
|
Satyricon Nem'Divinia
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 16:31:00 -
[57]
I can see it now....2 amazing possibilities with faction warfare:
40m+sp pilots reactivate or relocate to high sec empire space and spend all day one shotting newbs of opposing factions.
Jita's market legacy shuts down because noone can live long enough to dock, freighters start popping left and right, and prices sky rocket because demand increases because products never reach their destination.
|
Rodj Blake
Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 17:03:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Rodj Blake on 27/04/2008 17:02:56 We already have a prototype form of FW in the game - the Saracens v Defiants event in the Bleak Lands. |
Zeknichov
Life. Universe. Everything. Wrath.
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 17:50:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Zeknichov on 27/04/2008 17:53:12 If you don't want to force factional warfare on everyone then it's not factional warfare. Rename it factional Olympics. Or you could call it battlegrounds and that's the exact point the OP is making.
The extent factional warfare affacts everyone should differ depending on the choices each players makes but if you're Amarr and Amarr are losing then you should be making less isk then a player who is Gallente if Gallente is winning. If you're on the losing side, missions, mining, ratting, trading and safe empire space should be limited to you.
|
Rek Esket
Minmatar Grand Stellar Alliance PURGE.
|
Posted - 2008.04.27 18:09:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Mudrat it's giong to be caldari achura vs. everyone else
What a great idea. _________________________________________________
I fly an interceptor so I keep a small signature. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |