| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Schani Kratnorr
x13
    |
Posted - 2008.06.14 14:41:00 -
[301]
I dont know if this has been raised before, but I would like to add anobservation.
The background for this was me thinking a bit about games like planetside, star wars gaalaxies with somewhat similar team-play mechanics. Some, if not all games that implement hardwired team vs team gameplay, have problems maintaining the balance. Some try to solve this with artificial caps on how many of each team can be in one area at once, but that goes against the whole EVE concept in my opinion.
I really like the FW concept. it is simple and to the point (shoot stuff). But I fear the inherent problems faced trying to maintain a balance.
Momentum
Not being sharded, and having a lot of people to draw from may help. In my experience however there is a problem with team oriented gameplay. Once team A gets ahead of team B, those joining up will (to some extent) choose the team that has the upper hand (winnerjoiner mentality if you like).
What, if any, plans do CCP have to help balance out the obvious numerical differences between factions? (I DID we the newsitem, and I dont think writing "please join team A" will help much in the long run)
|
Encalderante
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 18:15:00 -
[302]
 Originally by: Schani Kratnorr
I dont know if this has been raised before, but I would like to add anobservation.
The background for this was me thinking a bit about games like planetside, star wars gaalaxies with somewhat similar team-play mechanics. Some, if not all games that implement hardwired team vs team gameplay, have problems maintaining the balance. Some try to solve this with artificial caps on how many of each team can be in one area at once, but that goes against the whole EVE concept in my opinion.
I really like the FW concept. it is simple and to the point (shoot stuff). But I fear the inherent problems faced trying to maintain a balance.
Momentum
Not being sharded, and having a lot of people to draw from may help. In my experience however there is a problem with team oriented gameplay. Once team A gets ahead of team B, those joining up will (to some extent) choose the team that has the upper hand (winnerjoiner mentality if you like).
What, if any, plans do CCP have to help balance out the obvious numerical differences between factions? (I DID we the newsitem, and I dont think writing "please join team A" will help much in the long run)
You are dead wrong, sir. EVE does not need to maintain a balance between the teams! This is only necessary in static worlds where nothing is allowed to change (read: all other MMORPGs). In those worlds, if the Alliance has more players than the Horde, you just have the Alliance winning this perpetually identical contest over and over again. In EVE, regardless of numbers issues, the best team is ACTUALLY GOING TO WIN. Currently this means probably eventually occupying all occupy-able systems, but eventually, my money is on losing Factions being actually and completely conquered. You know you can picture CCP taking it all the way. They have the ability. What you're going to see is a truly dynamic universe.
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:59:00 -
[303]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/06/2008 21:00:09
FW Missions.
Issues - The Mission runner has to travel for far too many jumps for little reward. The mission is not dangerous, its the route 9 times out of 10 given that travaling 30 jumps round trip for a mission is overkill..
Issues - The PvPer looking to hunt the mission runner has no clue where to look. Its all hit and miss. This makes it harder for the solo pvper to do their thing.
Solution - Have all FW missions run within 1-2 Jumps of agent. This way the solo/small gang PvPer can hunt his prey and people will start running FW missions as well. Everybody wins and this is a massive boost to the solo/small gang pvper
--
Billion Isk Mission |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 23:02:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/06/2008 21:00:09
FW Missions.
Issues - The Mission runner has to travel for far too many jumps for little reward. The mission is not dangerous, its the route 9 times out of 10 given that travaling 30 jumps round trip for a mission is overkill..
Issues - The PvPer looking to hunt the mission runner has no clue where to look. Its all hit and miss. This makes it harder for the solo pvper to do their thing.
Solution - Have all FW missions run within 1-2 Jumps of agent. This way the solo/small gang PvPer can hunt his prey and people will start running FW missions as well. Everybody wins and this is a massive boost to the solo/small gang pvper
no, make it 1-2 jumps from the agent ONCE you enter enemy space.
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 09:59:00 -
[305]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/06/2008 21:00:09
FW Missions.
Issues - The Mission runner has to travel for far too many jumps for little reward. The mission is not dangerous, its the route 9 times out of 10 given that travaling 30 jumps round trip for a mission is overkill..
Issues - The PvPer looking to hunt the mission runner has no clue where to look. Its all hit and miss. This makes it harder for the solo pvper to do their thing.
Solution - Have all FW missions run within 1-2 Jumps of agent. This way the solo/small gang PvPer can hunt his prey and people will start running FW missions as well. Everybody wins and this is a massive boost to the solo/small gang pvper
no, make it 1-2 jumps from the agent ONCE you enter enemy space.
1-2 jumps inside enemy space could be 30 jump round trip from agent's fixed location. Also does not solve the issue of promoting the solo/small gang pvper, since they are looking for targets while avoiding the blob.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
ollobrains2
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 12:06:00 -
[306]
only thing i can think of is yet more interconnectedness of the low sec gate system. Instead of having 4 gates up it to 8 perhaps have a grid like gate system with more ways in and out. Could be extended to 0.0 space as well at least the npc space. this might encourage more fluid player movement, less choke points and less blobbing and less protection for carebears but more exposure also for pvpers. Free up traffic also. Will ccp do this no but those are some of hte traffic movements ways they can fix it
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 05:28:00 -
[307]
Edited by: MotherMoon on 22/06/2008 05:28:56
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/06/2008 21:00:09
FW Missions.
Issues - The Mission runner has to travel for far too many jumps for little reward. The mission is not dangerous, its the route 9 times out of 10 given that travaling 30 jumps round trip for a mission is overkill..
Issues - The PvPer looking to hunt the mission runner has no clue where to look. Its all hit and miss. This makes it harder for the solo pvper to do their thing.
Solution - Have all FW missions run within 1-2 Jumps of agent. This way the solo/small gang PvPer can hunt his prey and people will start running FW missions as well. Everybody wins and this is a massive boost to the solo/small gang pvper
no, make it 1-2 jumps from the agent ONCE you enter enemy space.
1-2 jumps inside enemy space could be 30 jump round trip from agent's fixed location. Also does not solve the issue of promoting the solo/small gang pvper, since they are looking for targets while avoiding the blob.
right so get closer to enemy space.
or my idea of one way gates that put you 15 jumps into enemy space in one jump.
|
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 18:58:00 -
[308]
Originally by: MotherMoon
Edited by: MotherMoon on 22/06/2008 05:28:56
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Originally by: MotherMoon
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 16/06/2008 21:00:09
FW Missions.
Issues - The Mission runner has to travel for far too many jumps for little reward. The mission is not dangerous, its the route 9 times out of 10 given that travaling 30 jumps round trip for a mission is overkill..
Issues - The PvPer looking to hunt the mission runner has no clue where to look. Its all hit and miss. This makes it harder for the solo pvper to do their thing.
Solution - Have all FW missions run within 1-2 Jumps of agent. This way the solo/small gang PvPer can hunt his prey and people will start running FW missions as well. Everybody wins and this is a massive boost to the solo/small gang pvper
no, make it 1-2 jumps from the agent ONCE you enter enemy space.
1-2 jumps inside enemy space could be 30 jump round trip from agent's fixed location. Also does not solve the issue of promoting the solo/small gang pvper, since they are looking for targets while avoiding the blob.
right so get closer to enemy space.
or my idea of one way gates that put you 15 jumps into enemy space in one jump.
yeah that can work. But that would only benifit the mission runner and not the solo/small raiding pvper(s). But its still better than what we have currently.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
General StarScream
Empyrean Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:26:00 -
[309]
Remove the navy in high sec let us have our war
Please resize signature to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Encalderante
|
Posted - 2008.07.02 20:13:00 -
[310]
General, you just want that because you enjoy sitting in Jita too much :)
|
|
ollobrains2
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 02:06:00 -
[311]
connection regions with more gates, more long range - will encourage more movement, less saftey and more organisation - flexible fluid warfare
|
Fforia
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 20:01:00 -
[312]
Guys love the faction war BUT
Having the Navy have Insta lock insta web insta neut what the hell were you thinking thats just out of order....
Also not letting cloak work again who needs the cold water enema for that one. This is a war let it be a war nerf the NPC's or at least remove the insta everything let them work properly make this a realistic war.
|
ChangWufei
The White Fang
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 16:45:00 -
[313]
I have been waiting for Factional Warfare for a long time because I thought it would put a form of instant action in to EVE. I always hoped that once it was put in I could go get a ship, maybe even a free t1 frig/cruiser/bs depending on my rank or whatever. Even without free ships I'd have been happy using cheap ships paid for by myself. Then I had hoped I could take this ship out to the front lines where everyone would be, trying to complete objectives and stop the enemy completing theirs. Instead there are 2 whole regions of lowsec with random people flying about in them and the occasional huge blob of ships or roaming nano gang of players with loads of money in crazy ships.
It seems that most people are too scared to go in to the lowsec regions and get in a fight and the only reason I can imagine for this is that they don't want to lose their ships. So just give them some cheap crappy ships? Might get them out to the fight? Or offer a bounty at 30% value of the ships they are killing so you can earn your money from fighting rather than having to go fight a bunch of idiotic lame ass NPC's for hours just to get 1 decent ship to go fight in.
Even when people do go in to the lowsec there's just a whole load of space and systems which can be captured by a guy on his own in a frigate. There is no front line so you can just go straight to the other side of the contested space and cap any system you want. Once you capture a system it means absolutely nothing and nowone cares if you are trying to cap a system so why should they even bother stopping you.
In my perfect scenario of an EVE which is fun and not boring as hell. You can go in to the militia window and it will say "System to attack: A | System to defend: B". In system A and B I would find everyone from my militia trying to attack or defend the system respectively. Every time I kill a ship I would get money for it so I don't have to go **** about with missions and ratting to earn my money to come back and actually have fun. Obviously having everyone in one or two systems and a mechanism so they can earn money by being there so they don't have to go mess about with boring stuff would mean those systems would lag to hell I guess so it'll prob never happen.
In summary, FW needs some SERIOUS changes as atm it is becoming more and more quiet and boring. Bring on Jumpgate Evolution... I hear they actually encourage fighting in that game :O instead of encouraging carebearing.
|
Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 23:11:00 -
[314]
Hi,
My name is Cy. I followed the story build up two months before release and during downtime on patch day. There was so much EvE story content that I wanted badly to play in The Empyrean Age. I thought perhaps this was a chance to interact with EvE's storyline. Upon release day I took a Corporation of veteran PVP Players into the Black Rise and Caldari Factional Warfare.
I'm about to pull the Corporation out of Factional Warfare for many reasons. If a developer would like to discuss the reasons or survey me I would more than happy to particpate. I can be found on SISI quite often. I do love EvE.
The most outstanding reason why the Corporation and I are leaving Factional Warfare is because we are bored.
Make no mistake ... we tried everything and been the Caldari Factional Warfare news for it.
The Caldari news by the way ... has stopped reporting. It's as though there is no news to report or the scene is dead.
If this is all that there is to the Empyrean Age you can have the entire Factional Warfare experience in a week.
To sum it up ... it takes about a week to achieve the highest decoration in the Militia and once you do ... you get nothing for it.
|
Ysabelle nKataros
Evolution
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 12:07:00 -
[315]
Edited by: Ysabelle nKataros on 23/08/2008 12:07:26
Factions and Standings
Given the revelation of the purpose of the Nefantar tribe splitting and becoming the Ammatar Mandate has been revealed and the Amarrian Empire now no longer has cordial relations with Ammatar, the standings within EVE should be updated to reflect this.
This does then leave the question of whether a player who has high standing with Ammatar should retain his derived standings to Amarr and Minmatar or have them changed... IMO they should stay the same, only the direct standings to Ammatar should change to reflect their alignment.
BoB: When we have fleet battles, our killboard crashes |
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:44:00 -
[316]
Intro / Justification
Has anyone checked out the FW militia board statistics? On the Gallente side of thing, where we're about 5000 strong against 5000 or so Caldari, the Gallente are averaging only slightly a bit above 100 kills per day. And, except for the Ammar with about twice that, that's pretty typical FW militia performance. Think about that. 10,000 people in a dedicated PvP organization and only 100 kills per day. And, if my experiences with joining FW PvP gangs is representitive you have to imagine about 2/3 or more of those kills are some poor straggler or scout getting ganked rather than an actual, entertaining small fleet engagement. My typical FW PvP outing consists of two hours flying around looking for action, then the FC decides there's nothing to do so we 'plex for an hour in hope of "drawing them out", then heading home in disgust.
Is it safe to call FW a failure yet? That, as was pretty widely commented on earlier, the chance to bleed money replacing ships while trashing your faction standings for essentially no gain, isn't going to suddenly turn EVE in to a glorious PvP haven? It's essentially LowSec combat reskinned. Or, maybe, 0.0 except you don't have any PoS-es to defend (since nobody cares about controlling the contested space) and don't get rewarded for your time by having pricy ærat bounties to pop. In one respect, FW is a success: getting a pick-up PvP group is very easy now. I applaud this, but once you get the group you still have the usual "anyone smaller than you runs away, you run away from anyone bigger" dance where you spend lots of time online with nothing to show for it.
The causes of this are roughly the same as the causes of problems with EVE PvP in general: fighting profits you little, death costs you much, there's no mechanism to provide "fair" fights, no reason to engage if you don't think you have reasonable odds of winning, and there's no incentive to disperse into multiple smaller fleets to attack or defend multiple targets. (which is the alternative to some sort of force-balancing mechanic, since it will let people seek out targets they are comfortable trying to deal with instead of having to fall back to "the enemy fleet is too big- run away!")
The problem is simply that thereÆs no reason for a smaller fleet to engage a larger fleet and not enough fleets out there to let you find a fleet of your size.
Suggested Solution
So what do we do?
Fair fights? Naaahà.
First of all, I'm going to discard the whole "try to arrange fair fights" thing. Although I think that providing PvP missions that enforced rough force parity would be the easiest and most effective way of facilitating PvP in EVE, I don't think it's politically feasible to do so. I can already hear the cries of "that's what EVE is about!" and "go play WoW, noob!", and honestly I sympathize with this perspective. The sort of no-holds-barred combat that goes on in EVE is reasonably unique among MMOs and in many ways is extremely cool. I'd be willing to trade it for a chance to be able to hop on and be engaged in an interesting small gang battle within 30 minutes or less, but some people don't want to risk losing what makes EVE unique and exciting to them and I can respect that. More to the point, I don't think there's even a slight chance of being able to get changes like that through in the near future so away with it.
Continued... |
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:45:00 -
[317]
Bounties?
Earlier on page 6, I suggested a ship bounty scheme. An auto-bounty system within the context of EVE has some fundamental challenges, since on one hand theyÆll need to be quite profitable to compensate for the loss of ships a player will accrue participating in PvP and on the other hand you need to keep people from profitably farming opposing militia alts. Still, the fundamental idea remains: if you want people to fight, reward fighting.
I still think this is a good idea, but upon reflection and with some FW under by belt I think it would be insufficient. It doesnÆt address the tendency to blob into two opposing fleets sufficiently, although bounty splitting helps, and because an outgunned fleet will not only take more losses but inflict significantly less, calibrating the bounty payoffs to make uneven engagements worthwhile for both sides without being a massive ISK faucet would be very difficult.
I think bounties are a very good idea. TheyÆll put extra reward for when actual PvP occurs, which is what we want if we want to encourage PvP while minimizing safe ISK harvesting while avoiding actual combat. I donÆt think bounties will necessarily fix the core problem, however.
Control Points!
FW has a very good core idea: provide multiple predefined combat locations. This should encourage PvP and also make people spread out, right? Well, not really. The problem is that they donÆt give you any reason not to blob up and precious little reason to even care about them in the first place because they offer negligible rewards for capturing them. (faction standing being essentially worthless to a PvP player, except when it reaches research level agents- assuming you havenÆt already ground up research agents already)
The solution? Make the control points worthwhile, make the reward for them be divided among the capture-ees so that the more people on them the less theyÆre worth, and make them numerous. People will spread out to farm as many as possible, which will give us lots of targets to engage. Leaving a control point will reset the timer, so if you want your cash you need to leave at least some force behind to guard it. If nothing else, sheer greed will provide defense against everyone blobbing into two opposing fleets.
Continued... |
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:46:00 -
[318]
Control Points!
FW has a very good core idea: provide multiple predefined combat locations. This should encourage PvP and also make people spread out, right? Well, not really. The problem is that they donÆt give you any reason not to blob up and precious little reason to even care about them in the first place because they offer negligible rewards for capturing them. (faction standing being essentially worthless to a PvP player, except when it reaches research level agents- assuming you havenÆt already ground up research agents already)
The solution? Make the control points worthwhile, make the reward for them be divided among the capture-ees so that the more people on them the less theyÆre worth, and make them numerous. People will spread out to farm as many as possible, which will give us lots of targets to engage. Leaving a control point will reset the timer, so if you want your cash you need to leave at least some force behind to guard it. If nothing else, sheer greed will provide defense against everyone blobbing into two opposing fleets.
More Specificallyà
Below, IÆm going to provide a specific suggested implementation for a bunker control system as I sketched out in the previous section. Obviously, any actual numbers and particulars will need to be subject to playtesting and this isnÆt the only way to approach the issue.
The system described below is intended to completely replace the existing plex/bunker system. I think the existing system could be made to work, but would have significant issues even if the lack-of-reward issue were addressed so IÆm setting it to the side for the time being. (the FW ômissionö system is even more structurally flawed as a method to encourage PvP so IÆd be inclined to toss it as well, but it also has little conflict with the suggested system so we can just ignore it for the time being)
The Control Points
The physical details control points function just like the existing æplexes. An acceleration gate leads to a bunker that is sensitive to the presence of militia ships. However, itÆs just a floating beacon, and it is neutral. No NPCs, either side can capture it, and itÆs visible on the overview to both sides. When only one side has ships next to it, it counts down. When both sides have ships next to it, the timer is paused. If a side doesnÆt have any ships next to it, the time immediately resets to the full value. (and starts counting down for the opposing side, if they have ships present)
All bunkers have a 25 KM control radius. Acceleration gates let any militia ship through. L1 bunkers take 10 minutes to capture and respond to frigates or bigger. L2 bunkers take 15 minutes and respond to cruisers or bigger. L3 bunkers, 20 and battleships. You could throw in L4 bunkers and capital ships, but I wouldnÆt- capital ships are not a good way to encourage dispersion of forces. Additionally, you could reverse this and make the bunkers respond to ôor smallerö and the accel gates keep the big ships out, but IÆm really not that worried about the bigger ships. If theyÆre willing to risk that much ISK for such a small reward, let æem; eventually theyÆll get tackled and swarmed by smaller ships assuming there arenÆt bigger ships to deal with them and failing that they can only be in one place at a time. I donÆt think ship size is a significant problem in the grand scale of things.
When the counter hits 0, all players in gangs with a ship in the control radius split the bunker payoff and the bunker vanishes.
Continued... |
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:47:00 -
[319]
Quantity of Bunkers
Take the average fleet size youÆre aiming for. IÆd suggest 5. Multiply that number by two, since both teams will need a fleet to contest it. Take the total number of militia members in the contested space, divide by the resulting number. ThatÆs roughly how many bunkers should be in play in that contested space at any given time. Spawn more if needed. DonÆt spawn more when a bunker is captured if youÆre over that number.
What types to spawn? Well, thatÆs up to you, but IÆd just go for an even distribution, filling the lower level slots first. Need 4 bunkers? 2 L1, 1 L2, 1 L3. YouÆll need to tweak this.
IÆd probably be inclined to throw in a little extra- maybe 2 L1 and 1 L2- just to give a few extra targets and to let a newb trying to get their feet wet in contested space have something to aim for that might not be opposed. Not like anyone is going to be getting rich off it anyway. (see below)
Rewards
Now for the tricky part. Payoff. I think this is a simple enough formula, actually:
Payoff = expected fleet size (from above) x equal level PvE mission payoff x (bunker capture time / average mission completion time)
In other words, if youÆre completely unopposed youÆre making roughly the same ISK per hour that youÆd make mission-ing at a mission of the equal level to the bunker youÆre capturing. Maybe saving a few on ISK on ammo. In practice, youÆre making a whole lot less because losing a ship costs you a lot of money. You might not even be breaking even, given the way EVE PvE payoffs are (properly) balanced (given the low risk involved). Still, enough money to be a draw to people looking for a little action and a prayer of getting ISK.
Worst case? Everyone grinds bunkers safely and nobody ever fights. TheyÆre making no more money that theyÆd make mission-ing and nothing breaks. I think paying them for being nice and providing me with targets to shoot is well worth it, but I also think weÆre going to be seeing very little ôsafeö grinding and a lot of explosions.
Aside
Since another common argument against proposals like this that IÆve heard is ôPvP is its own reward,ö IÆm going to pre-emptively argue against it here after my main post to avoid breaking up the flow of my suggestions. If youÆre already sold on the need to further encourage PvP, you can just skip all of this.
PvP [I]IS[/u] its own reward. Absolutely! Except for dedicated PvE/logistics players who wonÆt care about FW anyway aside, weÆre here to fight. Heck, if EVE would let me jump into an interesting PvP fight at the click of the button IÆd fund my PvP expenses with tedious mission grinding and just stick to ships cruiser size and smaller to keep expenses manageable. The problem is, it doesnÆt and IÆm not willing to pay a monthly fee for the privilege of flying around for three hours looking for a fight that never happens.
The problem isnÆt that that PvP isnÆt its own reward. ItÆs that not all PvP is equally rewarding. More specifically, flying into a situation you canÆt possibly not only profit but cannot even accomplish anything isnÆt particularly rewarding for most of us, especially when it comes with the stick of losing time and ISK assembling another ship at some point. I suspect IÆm not alone in finding being on the winning side of that equation where you pop a lone ship that never had a chance a little tedious, either. Since EVE doesnÆt facilitate fair fights and fighting and losing doesnÆt generally accomplish anything, PvP being its own reward simply isnÆt enough to cause PvP to occur with any degree of regularity. The problem isnÆt that people donÆt want to fight, itÆs that that a situation where the fight will be rewarding for both sides doesnÆt come up a lot. |
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 22:18:00 -
[320]
Originally by: delor
Fair fights? Naaahà.
First of all, I'm going to discard the whole "try to arrange fair fights" thing. Although I think that providing PvP missions that enforced rough force parity would be the easiest and most effective way of facilitating PvP in EVE, I don't think it's politically feasible to do so. I can already hear the cries of "that's what EVE is about!" and "go play WoW, noob!", and honestly I sympathize with this perspective. The sort of no-holds-barred combat that goes on in EVE is reasonably unique among MMOs and in many ways is extremely cool. I'd be willing to trade it for a chance to be able to hop on and be engaged in an interesting small gang battle within 30 minutes or less, but some people don't want to risk losing what makes EVE unique and exciting to them and I can respect that. More to the point, I don't think there's even a slight chance of being able to get changes like that through in the near future so away with it.
Continued...
I know people will fight this, but they are just short term thinkers. I strongly support such a way to find "fair" PVP, and done with a good PVP mission wrapper it would fit nicely into the whole FW war.
I envision all the people that would oppose this, are also the ones that want to move L4 missions into low sec. Making PVP more accessible in low sec will drive more traffic into low sec. As it is most of the FW traffic in low sec is either small gangs of imposible to catch frigs doing plexes, and blobs. A "fair" pvp mechanism would still mean that those gangs would need to move through low sec to accomplish their missions.
Pirates and "PVPer" want more people in low sec, a lot of people mission in high sec not because they don't want to PVP, but rather they don't want to spend hours looking for an engagement that might not even happen. After doing that a couple times people either don't log in, or do a mission with the time that they have available.
It will be interesting to see if RVR in warhammer takes the casual PVP from eve. Their model promises to be RP immersion, yet have "PVP on demand"
|
|
H Lecter
Gallente
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 12:51:00 -
[321]
Dear devs,
As my bug report was rejected I try it here once more:
Before the latest ¦Empyrean Age¦ Patch I had ¦ctrl+b¦ assigned as the shortcut for ¦return drones to bay¦ and everything was working as intended and I had no problem that the next message in my chat would be in bold letters (this is the same shortcut defaulted by the interface)
After the patch suddenly the above shortcut ceased to work. When trying to re-designate it, I got the message that I cannot, because it¦s already being used for bold letters. Could you please allow me to use ¦ctrl+b¦ as a user designated shortcut again?
Otherwise please let me change the shortcut for bold letters to a different combination - I actually do not care if I write bold, italic or whatever as I use mainly voice com. It may sound like a small deal, but as ¦ctrl+left mouse button¦ is used for targeting I can direct my drones more instinctively by using the ctrl button for all drone shortcuts and I prefer meaningful combinations that my smallish brain can keep track of (ctrl+E = Engage / ctrl-R = Return and orbit / ctrl-b=return to Bay).
I understood that it was a design decision, but not why it was taken - did really someone get annoyed by bold letters??
I expect more customization possibilities after a patch, not less and was actually very happy when the previous patch made it possible to direct drones by keyboard instead of mouse commands - which is especially tiresome in our nice laggy universe...
 |
Raakall
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 10:02:00 -
[322]
This has probably been suggested earlier but never then less hereÆs a suggestion about ranks. The ranks has no use today. Why cant the rank give a discount n the LP store for that faction your fight for? This discount would apply to all corps under that faction. The higher rank the more discount.
 |
dal gorrin
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 16:04:00 -
[323]
Hi chaps
I love faction warfare but you need to sort out the problem of filtering out allied factions on the overview.
As a gallente I have the minmatar pilots on my overview marked as neutrals and i'm only able to determine them as minmatar by using the militia column. This causes a problem because i have the amarr marked as neutrals too and i have to be carefull of what i'm targeting. It would be better if i could have just the amarr appear on the overview like the caldari as a red star or another sinister color. Also it would be good if i could filter the minmatar out of the overview just tostop friendly fire screw ups between two allied factions of wich there has been a few. Any action on these problems would help greater cooperations between allied factions such as the gallante/minmatar and caldari/amarr. Of course if u just fix it for the gallante/minmatar and feck up the caldari/amar over view that would be doubly good.
cheers
dal gorrin |
ChangWufei
The White Fang
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 17:34:00 -
[324]
Seems like this thread was pretty pointless as all talk of future development seems to be about walking in stations, adding in new mechanics for industry and adding pointless certificates that show what skills you've got. So factional warfare is to be left as the shoddy implementation it currently is?
It was supposed to be 'low-risk' to get people introduced to pvp. What it actually is is pvp which doesn't give 0.0 access and so doesn't allow you the access to easy money which you need to really enjoy pvp imo. The devs only say they have succeeded in making it a low-risk form of pvp because people often use cheaper ships. The fact is the risk is basically the same because people only use cheaper ships because they can't afford to use more expensive ones because they don't have access to 0.0 roids and rats.
Add to all of this that 'capturing' a system is completely pointless and means nothing. Add to this the fact that it's just another blobfest and doesn't seem to encourage smaller gang combat at all. I mean haven't ccp been ranting on for ages about how they want to split up blobs with lots of different objectives which need to be completed simultaneously so you need small groups doing each one? Where is all this stuff? At the moment, just like in 0.0 space, the best thing to do is blob with the blob. The speed nerf will only make this more true. If you can't go fast and there are blobs everywhere then flying around in a small group will become even more suicidal or boring (avoiding blobs all day) than it currently is.
I had such high hopes for factional warfare but it seems it was badly implemented and then forgotten about because the T1 market economy appeared to show it was a low risk pvp as hoped. CCP have done so well over the years but, to me, this is such a huge disappointment and I hope they at least try to rectify it.
|
Evan Batarr
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 17:23:00 -
[325]
Anyone else thinking that Qr is not an expansion but rather a joke?
Where is the new content? 1 ship and a lot of unwanted and unneeded nerfs!
The last expansion already was a joke - Faction warfare. Lulz.
TBH I'd rather have T20 give BPOs to BOB than Devs having absolutely no idea of the game they're developing. The Tempest a good Sniper  (zulupark) or fitting small guns to a BS  .
Seriously - get your act together or EVE won't have a bright future.
|
Acobar
Minmatar
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 04:40:00 -
[326]
Where ffs is "Midas"? I was looking forward to many much needed improvements in the ghetto of Eve. The only more poorly designed interface (besides python in general) is the corporate interface.
When can we expect the update you were spewing after EA? All I hear are crickets......
Agony is recruiting
Joining Agony
|
T 2
Minmatar
Tribal Core
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 10:27:00 -
[327]
Hello,
I'd like to bring this issue to this thread too as I feel it is very important.
The plex spawning mechanics is favoring people that can be online right after downtime. More plexes are spawned to systems right after downtime - specially to the systems that people want to do plexes in. So peeps try to get plexes to a target system for 21 hours of the day and they pretty much spawn to that system after downtime. So if you cant be online then - well its a no go for you.
Amarr have taken all the systems Minmatar managed to conquer back using that unbalanced spawn mechanism. That could not have been done with balanced spawn mechanism.
Discussion about this is in thread: Link to thread discussing plex spawning mechanics
Best Regards,
T 2
-----------
Member of Tribal Core - fighting for Minmatar Militia.
Death to Amarr; long live the Minmatar Nation.
 |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |