Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
1036
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 13:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.
GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
GÇóAfter that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.
GÇóWe also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.
GÇóWe approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.
GÇóWe talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.
GÇóLack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.
GÇóThe EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.
CCP Navigator -Community Manager |
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
192
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done. |
Elmanketticks
State Protectorate Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole?
If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! FOR THE STATE! |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
FW will become interesting if some conditions are met:
1. There must be something to gain from system control, highsec systems should be affected 2. There is competittion between militias and between militias and the general public over resources 3. Pirate militias should be added to FW; their alignment should not be decided a priori so that their players can decide who to fight against and who to help.
Moreover players should be given more decisional power over politics; possibly CCP could hire someone to manage every faction to make FW like a persistent live event.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
624
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
thanks. sounds very reasonable so far. Would be a great set of improvements. (and it would improve gameplay, e.g reduce docking games and more) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
mentalkiller
Cause.for.Concern
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
I don't even know what factional warfare is. All I know is that eveonline lacks consensual PVP or at least a place where you could go and have PVP for sure, and not camp a gate or wait for something to happen.
/mentalKiller |
darmwand
Repo.
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
mentalkiller wrote:I don't even know what factional warfare is. All I know is that eveonline lacks consensual PVP or at least a place where you could go and have PVP for sure, and not camp a gate or wait for something to happen.
Maybe try RvB? darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
Sentinel Mantik
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
I participated in FW for about a month.
I hoped it would be more into Lore then just as it is now. I would like to see pilots getting boni to ships of the faction they are fighting for when they are in one of the fw-systems. I would like to see Amarr-Militia-Pilots flying Amarr hulls against Minmatar in their hulls
Minmatar 4 life
Focus on ceptor and dictors
|
Kimo Khan
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Also add that people cannot join a Faction corp or stay in a Faction corp unless they as individuals meet the qualifications. Saw way too many people who kept jumping in and out of fake corps just to spy on militia. They were like -10 faction standing towards our militia and every 7 days when the corp they were in could no longer keep them due to their status, they would leave and then re-join.
If you want to hunt other faction, just join the proper faction and come hunt. If you want to spy then at least use an alt who has proper standing, but corp jumping is really lame. |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:Words in bold below are quotes.
GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.
Awesome do this! Don't listen to the haters. This is going to make a huge difference in giving meaning to system control and into organically creating a front line in the battlefield with out forcing another mechanic into the system.
Cyno-Jammer, I don't see a way this won't be Meta-gamed and add grief. If it is implemented it should be done for the Highest LP investment and for only very limited times, 30 minutes or less.
GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
I will be collecting my data-cores soon.
If you remove the passive part of the current mechanic then there should be an optional respec for those of us who only trained those skills for the passive income. If you only change the balance of the passive income then I don't think I should get a refund.
GÇóAfter that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.
This absolutely should work on a scale of diminishing returns.
I also think that as your side loses more and more systems the NPC's in your remaining system should be more active as they become more concentrated in their defense. And you should never be able to run missions in a system your faction controls.
GÇóWe also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.
This change is just elegant and makes sense. Also would be nice to not to have to bring target painters to shot a structure.
GÇóWe approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.
Like these ideas.
In terms of LP rewards, would like to see it balanced so that PvP gives the most LP, then capturing plexes, and lastly mission running.
GÇóWe talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.
This should be balanced dynamically tied to the conversion value of LP on the market and in such a way as PvP offers the best way in Faction Warfare to earn LP.
GÇóLack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.
I think the idea behind initially hiding the real values of what it takes in victory points to make a system vulnerable had some merit, at this point these factors should be made completely transparent. This will have the effect of letting the militias know where it is easiest to find fights. And with the added consequences should balance itself. As in knowing whats going on and where fighting is happening will have more meaning and inform player decisions.
GÇóThe EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.
I think to start Dust should only effect how fast a system is taken, but after a while it could be made a percentage of what is necessary to take a system, never to exceed 50%.
In the far future you could anchor all the IHUBs on the first planet in a system or a Dust fightable asteroid near the sun, where they could then even help shoot it.
I think system swapping happens way to fast now. Should happen over the course of 2-7 days. Also there should be a lag of 30 minutes to a couple hours once a system becomes vulnerable before you are able to shot the IHUB. Long enough that those online can muster some defense, but not enough to encourage 0.0 blob warfare.
When is the devblog coming? When with this be on Singularity? And when are we likely to start to see these changes?
Glad to see meaningful changes happening. Keep up the "good" work! ( will take away the quotes if it works) |
|
Steve Celeste
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
237
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Good to see that FW is being brought in line with the endgame of Eve.
Enjoy your sov warfare. |
Phione
Imperial Outlaws
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Yes, Glad it is finally being acknowledged as being incomplete......
As long as the Reward is equal or greater to the sacrifice of being in FW (as well as cannont be farmed), we should have a win, win.
If you can't justify being in FW....Then your job is still not done.... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2108
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
I'll be keeping an eye on all the Faction Warfare changes as they are revealed, no doubt many of the fans that are there right now have more details to share than were listed in the OP here. I'll wait a day or so before really posting anything substantial, just so I can soak it all in and get the lay of the land and have a chance to speak with the community.
If you have pressing concerns about the changes here, email me right away, and I'll start collecting all the notes I receive on the subject. If you're THERE at fanfest right now and have more details to share than are listed here, send me anything you have. I'm very limited being stateside, all I have at the moment are some vague ideas and few things I heard over twitter, so by all means, send me your thoughts!
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Indeterminacy
THORN Syndicate Initiative Mercenaries
50
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
mentalkiller wrote:eveonline lacks consensual PVP
nope.jpg
If you can't find consensual PVP you're in the wrong corp/alliance and or wrong part of space. |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:21:00 -
[15] - Quote
All the ideas mentioned in the original post sound great, especially denying docking access in enemy space. It all depends on the details of how it's implemented though. |
Freelancer117
Obsidian Tigers
22
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hi,
There was a question asked during this fanfest how FW can affect empire space in high sec,
especially towards capsuleer pilots that are flying in said empire space (hisec) of course.
My thought was why not give FW players the ability to construct Super jump gates that instead of jumping one system,
CAN JUMP ONE REGION
those that are involved in FW or capsuleers who show they are sympathetic toward a certain faction can use them.
Reasons why Super gates should be made:
- science & industry; capsuleers have acces to technology normal npc's just don't have. In the latest eve book concord even doesn't like the use of tech 3 in their supervised space because of its origins are suspect.
It will add a nice sink where LP's, isk and materials can be invested for convenience purposes and the building sites can be another great source for battlegrounds.
Empires want to get an edge on other empires, and if they can deny they are themselves involved in the constructing of these supergates by hiding behind their militia, their agenda can still be served.
- logistics; moving armies across a battlefield is a logistical nightmare.
With the use of railroads and autobahns (germany) 20th centaury goverments had a better way to move their armies internallyacross their space and giving them a strategic edge.
Capsuleers that aren't active in FW can still be sympathetic to the cause by either contributing into the building pot (its a massive enterprise) or by increasing their faction status above a certain level or plenty of other ways that might increase the access through role playing opportunities or what not.
- People might say this convenience will be an end towards time sink, by reducing travelling time somewhat. (mind the placement of one Super gate per region only)
But you have to remember how this game is setup, its not a F2P game where time sinks are important to keep you playing so the company has more time to sell you stuff.
Thank you CCP for EveTV and going in the right direction again.
|
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
554
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 15:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Elmanketticks wrote:CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills!
then donate your stacks of passive income together with the skillpoints. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Peri Helion
Omega Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Curatores Veritatis Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:42:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:Elmanketticks wrote:CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! then donate your stacks of passive income together with the skillpoints.
What staks? A whole month of passive income on my one toon with all skills at 4 is about 60m isk. I could make more than that in about 2 or 3 lvl 4 missions..
If I took all skils to 5 (another 75 days) I would be making about 82m per toon which I could make in about 3 or 4 lvl 4 missions.
Lets face it - datacores was a POOR substitute for those who really invested in these skills back in the T2 Lottery days. Removing them now would be an insult to injury. |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 16:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
1. The stations we can dock in...are these original systems that are considered 'Amarr' or 'Minmatar' in the current sense, or would it be tied to what systems we have sovereignty in? Right now, you can swap who 'has' the system in less than a day...does that mean that during a timezone I don't play, I could lose access to my assets? Will we still be able to dock in none FW related stations within system? Will non FW people be able to dock in FW related stations?
2. "Upgrade their captured system" Upgrade it to/for what? It's not like we carebear in a warzone that much. ::gasp:: Then...does this mean that there will be a way to prevent none FW pilots in? Because it seems unfare that we can upgrade a system only to have neutrals dock and use the system beyond our control. We can't bubble gates or really 'own' the system in the sense that you can in nullsec...so what's to keep people from taking advantage of the work of the FW pilots? Only thing I can see useful in this is ability to cyno jam a system. But...I'm not sure even that would be that useful...except to PL if they join FW and cyno jas Amamake to keep the Smurfsbrigade from downing another one of their titans....
3. What's a data core again? I'm at war. I want to buy data cores...why? IS it something shiny I can put on a ship?
4. Adjusting prices based on how well you are doing....what determines how well you are doing? How many systems you own? Or how many pvp kills.....? What if one militia is plex heavy doers and another is pvp heavy doers? Is this being thought through?
5. "For consistency reasons with null-security space" ....because we've made it so clear to you that we want to be just like null security space. ::angry face::
6. Infrastructure Hubs...just a name change or mechanics change to go with it? I guess it would be confusing if there were two items in-game named Infrastructure Hub that were completely different....(null-sec vs FW) Who's lp is gonna pay? Cause I aint gonna give none of my lp...I'd rather buy SFIs then some upgrade on a hub thingy any day.
7. LP for Plexing and increased LP for PVP based on ship/mods --Yes, indeed. A common sense fix. ;)
8. More visibility, leader boards ....hmmm....
9. EVE complex-DUST matches....say huh?
|
Pram Tet Ruins
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
I am a new player. I decided to go down the datacore road for passive income. Does this mean I should stop? And, if so, thanks for nothing CCP, you've ruined my first few weeks. I thought the goal was to keep paying accounts these days? |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2115
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 17:23:00 -
[21] - Quote
Pram Tet Ruins wrote:I am a new player. I decided to go down the datacore road for passive income. Does this mean I should stop? And, if so, thanks for nothing CCP, you've ruined my first few weeks. I thought the goal was to keep paying accounts these days?
Yes, you should stop right now, but that has nothing to do with any changes. You will be bored to tears trying to grind the standings and skills for datacore research when you should be just getting into better ships to access more content in the game.
The income is only noticeable if you invest heavily in it across several characters, and even than it only supplements isk over a long term basis, it will never be enough to sustain ship losses in the short term.
If you want accessible passive income that has a much more interesting future (giving DustGÇÖs release) I would look into Planetary Interaction.
Once youGÇÖre well established in the game, than if you want to set them up as an investment (like a stock portfolio or savings bonds) than go for it. But in the short term, it will only hold you back from doing a lot of other stuff instead, and wonGÇÖt pay you enough to be worth it.
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:30:00 -
[22] - Quote
mentalkiller wrote:I don't even know what factional warfare is. All I know is that eveonline lacks consensual PVP or at least a place where you could go and have PVP for sure, and not camp a gate or wait for something to happen.
1) RvB 2) ask for 1v1's in local in busy systems like Amarr and whatnot (you'll have hits and misses, ofc) 3) go through any wormhole that spawns in a busy system near trade hubs, stay uncloaked in space, boom, 99.5% guaranteed PvP |
Ajita al Tchar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP, I understand the desire to remove the word "passive" from the current datacore farming mechanic. Moving any datacores to FW LP stores sound dumb, though. Why would anyone even think of that? It doesn't fit in with the idea of what FW is (pew pew), it doesn't go with the backstory, it just doesn't make sense.
Instead you can consider other changes, like introducing more R&D agents but making them only give RP if you complete missions for them. Just don't move any datacores to FW. It won't be fixing a problem, it will just be a nonsensical change. |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
71
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
I don't know what a datacore is either lol http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Elmanketticks
State Protectorate Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
It's just that I only have one character and got used to the 60 mil / month due to datacore farming which I began a few months ago. And I have no interest in getting rid of this form of income.
So far no one delivered an explanation why datacores even should be available in the LP store in the future - which isn't just stoopid because no one will ever look for datacores in the FW LP store; but it also would remove a neat form of passive income for a *lot* of ppl out there who don't even do FW. FOR THE STATE! |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote: GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker. cture Hub in the system.
Enemy space. Does it mean that denying docking access apply to stations in high sec too ? By default all high sec regions are under one faction Sovereignty... |
RougeOperator
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
165
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 01:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
I cant believe ccp thinks this docking stuff is a good idea.
Its like they arnt even listening to actual FW players just retreads of ideas from years ago that would not work in the current environment. |
Seriphyn Inhonores
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
Loved the presentation on FW. The problems brought up hit EVERY nail on the head, down to the Caldari NPC missile spam. My personal thanks to CCP on this.
Looking forward to the changes. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 02:21:00 -
[29] - Quote
you really need to add something in this fw patch, like the ability to create a personal wardec against wartarget spy alts in our militia. or just straight up vote to expel them. |
Kandreath
De Re Metallica Epsilon Shimmy Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 03:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
Datacore isn't a massive isk generator. However it is a nice passive income generator. For me it's good as I don't need to baby sit them, and it allows me to get on with the other aspects of the game.
I don't get a lot of time to play. Making it harder to generate a small amount of ISK just makes it harder for us casual players. For the record I do a bit of totally passive, a bit of "mostly passive" and a bit of "sorta' active" and a bit of full time active. Then I go a do something dumb and get a ship blown up and have to sink all that in a new hull.
So here are my questions. (by the way: If they were answered in the presentation then you'll figure out that I didn't watch the presentation.)
First: What the hell is wrong with datacore generation anyway? I can't see it needs nerfing. It's impact is a drop in the ocean.
Second: What the hell has this got to do with Factional Warfare. For the life of me; I simply can't see it. - If I put a tinfoil hat on I'd suggest that you are trying to slip this one out where industrialists won't see it.
Third: If you needed to ping datacores then I'd start with requiring interaction with the agent IE you need to pay a visit after a certain number of points were reached and (like with most RL R&D guys) to stroke his ego until he gets on with the job (Before I get flames, I've spent my career in development....I've seen, participated and been guilty myself).
|
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote: GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space
Please, please, please don't do this. This will result in one side winning and the other side not being able to fight back because they cannot base out of systems close enough to take systems back. Once one side has conquered all/most of the lowsec station systems, it will be game over because the losing side will have no place to base out of in order to take systems back. You need to REALLY think about this. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2129
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 05:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
Steve Celeste wrote:Hey FW guys we heard you hate sov warfare, so we put some of it into your FW so you can ragequit while you selfdestruct.
Painfully, painfully, true. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:10:00 -
[33] - Quote
The docking rights thing has needed to happen for ages. Honestly, I don't think it goes far enough. I'd like to see it so any neutral with really bad faction standings towards the sov holding faction can't dock in a warzone station. Not only would it cut down on incredibly stupid pirate carrier/station games, it would be a lot less ridiculous than having people who shoot you on a regular basis as your neighbors.
And as far as the sov stuff goes, I'm all for it as long as you don't go overboard and make it so not having it is painful.
Gameplay should be about consequences. If you don't defend your systems, you lose your access. Anything else is just asking ccp to hold your hands and give you a cookie. In other words, it ain't EVE. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2129
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote: Gameplay should be about consequences. If you don't defend your systems, you lose your access.
The critical thing is protecting game play diversity. True sovereignty holding, with total station lockout, investment in infrastructure, etc. are precisely the sort of game play that already exists in 0.0, and does not need to be duplicated in low sec.
Saying "thats just EVE" doesnt take into consideration the fact that militia pilots have been engaged in FW for years to not have to hassle with these things.
Militia pilots want fights. We want a plexing systems and reward system that YES, absolutely gives cookies and points two groups of feral cats at each others throats. Beyond that is where everyone in Faction Warfare starts diverging in what they want for the feature.
I think there are ways we can add reward and consequence to the system without duplicating 0.0 game play and reducing the number of things there are to do in EVE.
This is what CCP and the CSM have been saying - they want create a system that works well for Faction Warfare first and foremost. Now is the time to hold them to their word. This "streamlining" of 0.0 and FW gameplay is precisely what everyone has been screaming to prevent since the Winter Summit.
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Baroness Samcar
Weak and Needy
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 06:58:00 -
[35] - Quote
If R&D agents are removed, and datacores moved to faction warfare, I would damn well expect to have the skills i trained for this to be refunded. - On average, nearly 3 months of skills were trained just for datacores. - Its pretty bloody annoying to have those skills trained and no longer reap the benefits. - No, i dont want to use those skills for copying blueprints, I trained them purely for datacores.
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 08:10:00 -
[36] - Quote
I don't see it as that big a deal honestly. It's not like you're pushed out of your area completely, you can always fall back to high sec or elsewhere and continue to fight. You can never be fully pushed out of the warzone. Not to mention it also serves the function of establishing an organic frontline, since you won't be able to maintain operations too far from your own space due to logistics and enemy reinforcements. |
wingman01
The Dead Rabbit Society
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 10:18:00 -
[37] - Quote
Looks like a great improvement for FW, really pleased to see the attention going into FW.
Cant wait!! |
Eric Deloitte
The Flowing Penguins Iron Oxide.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 10:54:00 -
[38] - Quote
With regards to the comments about Datacores what is getting lost in the
"Nerf Passive Income Vs I want my SP back" debate
is that datacores form part of the cost of nearly every T2 item and ship.
If Datacores go from being Passive to Active then I would expect their price to go up, if they go up then so will T2 equipment and ships. As an example a T2 cruiser hull uses about 10 million isk in Datacores for invention, if this goes up expect to see further inflation on T2
Personally as a Producer and Consumer of Datacores, the income on Datacores is such a trickle, that its realistically a nice little bonus every now and again and if I lost it I wouldn't really feel it, but I'd be concerned about putting another bottleneck into T2 Production that would make prices rise. |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:17:00 -
[39] - Quote
Completely removing access to all stations in a system is problematic due to the nature of Faction War mechanics. What people do not understand is that flipping a system from one faction to another is a process that can take as little as 8 hours.
Therefore, you can go to bed, and if people in another time zone do not plex or defend, you can lose access to your stuff in that station.
There are several problems with this
1. This essentially nerfs pvp. If you can't get to your ships, or don't have the ability to base close to the warzone due to station mechanics, you are essentially making it more difficult for people to pvp in FW. (Not making the pvp more difficult, which would be fine...but actually making it harder to pvp at all.
2. The inability to dock in all stations doesnt make sense from a storyline perspective. Why would a station that is irrelevant to FW (ie: The Scope) prevent me from docking
3. The fact that neutrals can all dock means that you are essentially getting punished for being in FW. You are in FW so suddenly you may not be able to dock. You shuld be encouraging people to join FW, and this definately does not do it
4. FW, for good or bad, encourages new pvpers to join its ranks. In my opinion, if I was new, the inability to access my stuff, and the focus that would be needed for me to figure out the station/FW mechanics and try to location to somewhere 'safe' etc would be a show stopper. I would say, "well, this is really dumb and unproductive, I think I will go play something else now.
This will have multiple results
People will leave Faction War and fight as neutral instead due to frustration with the system
People will spend a lot of time and effort focusing on how to get around the system (ie: using neutral alts to get to their stuff) in stead of focusing on playing EVE and having fun
What they could do instead:
-Don't prevent docking, just prevent use of some of the station's facilities. Or
-Have the station guns that currently shoot GCCs shoot whomever the opposing militia is. We can still sneak in, but we certainly can't camp the station easily, or use it as effectively. Or
-Have the current stations permanently belong ONLY to the people in that militia. (No neutrals, no opposing militia.) Have station guns 'turn off' if opposing militia takes over, and remove access to agents, or something to that effect. Make it very desireable to keep the station in ownership, but
do not make the consequences a show stopper for many EVE players. |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
The LP system in eve is broken. I'm not talking about how we get LP or what we can buy.
Right now, EVE has a pretty complicated, player driven market. The reason it's so good is because it's so multi-faceted, so player driven, so open for people to use it in different ways.
The LP market is a static market that is not based on supply and demand. Basically, you farm missions, you buy whatever you want that is provided by a NPC.
What if, instead, they made it more supply and demand and more player controlled?
What if...players could sell things to the market 'pool' for LP, then use their lp to buy other stuff? What if you could use LP to buy practical items like non faction ships in that militia's race, (ie: the Minmatar could buy hurricanes, etc.)
1. This would encourage militias to use ships that belong to their militia. It would expand the RPness of FW a little in a totally non creepy way.
2. You develop a cycle between missioning and plexing to support pvpers, and visa versa.
3. You give people the ability to essentially 'fund' their war efforts.
4. Players could supply warzones, gain LP, and use the LP to buy faction items that they could then sell or use.
Putting stuff that's irrelevant to Faction War in the LP store only encourages people to 'farm' LP in missions without having to have any interest in actually participating in FW.
It also forces mechanics on people, which goes against the sandbox. You should not be forced to do FW missions in order to achieve access to an item that is largely irrelevant to FW. It's way too contrived a system. www.gamerchick.net Follow me on Twitter! @gamerchick42 |
|
This Suxbad
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 19:42:00 -
[41] - Quote
While I understand the potential fun of the faction warfare idea, there is one thing that has always bugged me.
Why are faction warfare pilots allowed to be pirates or kill civilians?
I think that it is a bit of a contradiction to be part of the "Government" and still be allowed to kill non warefare players.
I would like to see a higher standing decrease for faction warfare members that agress non faction warfare players. I would also think that anyone under a standing of 0 should be removed from faction warfare.
Sorry Blobbers but you shouldn't use the milita force against your civilians. If you get the perks then you should have some down sides also. |
ELECTR0FREAK
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:33:00 -
[42] - Quote
Elmanketticks wrote:CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills!
First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents.
Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation.
It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup.
I support it. |
ELECTR0FREAK
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:34:00 -
[43] - Quote
double post |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
ok sorry guys. i posted a whole heap of stuff into our corp forums and basically forgot that others might like to know what is going on
I'm at fanfest. i'm the guy with the yellow glasses speaking with the australian accent
as you can imaging i attended both the FW presentation and the Roundtable. I also managed to grab one of the devs this morning for 30secs
i've kind of gone bananas on this.
the background. all of this has happened because some people somewhere once said that their should be consequences to losing systems. cpp has taken this statement and turned it into the massive "what is wrong with faction warfare" item. i will try to state here clearly the difference between what i think/believe and what i said/know based on what i have seen and done last 2 days.
basically we're screwed and that this is pretty much developed. we were shown concept art on the LP point spending interfaces etc. it looks pretty far down the track of development. if you don't like it you need to say it here. they are watching the forums. they will do what they think people want. you have to tell them now. get everyone in FW to post here. EVERYONE
i think it's a really really bad idea and is going to turn eve fw into a job. you will log in each day and hope that the system that you're in hasn't been flipped while you were asleep and you have locked yourself out of your ships, corp hangers, medical facilities etc. you lose access to everything in the station (corp hangers anybody???). this in turn means that everyone starts keeping their ships in tuo or other nearby hi-sec systems and that has the massive impact of slowing down reships and making it harder to get and escalate fights. it means that people don't join fleets for pvp that also may involve system flipping, they join fleets because they HAVE to keep running plexes. this sucks
the idea is that each corp/player out of the goodness of their hearts, piles massive amounts of LP into "upgrading" systems they have capped to make them harder to re-cap and to eventually activate a cyno jammer. let me make it clear - corps and players have to spend THEIR LP into levelling up the systems......so instead of people using LP to get slicers with which they do some PVP and keep things rolling, they have to instead give it all up for the benefit of the faction. in reality, 1 or 2 corps and one or 2 players will care enough to do it a lot and it will not have much of an impact on anything apart from where we base our ships. this has monumental issues with other citizens of losec btw and massive repercussions for what might happen to fw. i'm sure that amarr doesn't want PL to join mims (for example) just so that they control the cyno jammer in make.
they said that all of this is still pretty fluid and need to look at a few things.
|
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
bunkers will change to ihubs (same as 0.0) which means they have bigger sig and can be hit better with caps and missile boats
they were also going to make LP for kills either incursion style in the fleet or on the killmail (i hope in the fleet). they were looking at the mechanics of this. it is my hope that they have a certain level of LP for each ship class and enemy pilot rank and then whatever this value is worth, it is split up to the members of the fleet (this encourages more, smaller gangs to fly and roam and less 32 BS killing 1 rifter fleets)
i told them in no uncertain terms that we are fw becuase we want to be and probably most of us have been to 0.0 and hate it so came into FW
my idea with the cyno jamming (i think it could be a really good combat tool btw) is this. anybody can trade a fairly massive amount of FACTION LP in to receive a data-chip or activation key. this can be traded, sold, killed in a cargo bay, anything. next to every faction warfare i-hub is a cyno jammer. sitting there in space. happy as you like. If your faction holds the system sov, anybody in your faction can warp to the cyno jammer, insert the LP bought microchip and fire the cyno jammer. in 60mins or DT the cyno jammer turns off. this increases the value of system ownership, gives us something juicy to see on killmails, is really simple, means we dont really really upset other losec citizens and gives us another tool to bring back the days of 60 vs 60 bs fites in kourm/auga. most importantly it is easy to implement and communicate rather than escalating levels of sov in losec???? wtf
next i said the station stuff is just crazy. just plain crazy although personally i can live with it (it's just like 0.0 mechanics where you lose a station you just trade all your stuff to a neutral alt or an alt you have in the enemy corp/alliance and get it all out). but it will SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the tempo of getting the bigger fights escalating. if you like station games this will screw you as well. all of a sudden everyone will have 5 guys in corp and 50 guys as neuts ready. it will seriously make it harder to get people to come into FW as the risk (or pain the bum anyway) goes up significantly
i pointed out that if they implement the changes it will cascade fail the smaller militias as people wont want to join the losing side as there will be too much money to make on data cores on the winning side. just like the alliance changes have really boosted the mims and basically cut the heart out of amarr in recent weeks
they said once the mechanics are sorted, in play and testing it will be possible to bring the pirate factions into the mix - things are being looked at so this works
on the avatar side they are looking at things like faction warfare medals, uniforms and accessories that can be purchased on the faction LP store and applied to your toon. they will look at ways to get the uniforms to update with ranks and stuff that you have earned in FW. no promises though.
i pointed out to them the broken issue of faction standing loss and then gaining it back being really hard because you've already gone through the promotions. this was new to them.
they were looking into rank having a boosting effect somehow on LP earns. this is good in principle.
they did think about control of the system has incursion style impacts on the systems e.g. better boosts etc, but at the moment they have a "realism" issue with these in incursions and didn't want to repeat the same mistake again, into FW. i agree with this.
i told them that everybody in the room knows that if ccp simply halved the payout of LP on faction missions, and gave us LP for every ship kill or plex we cap, that will fix 95% of the problems we have (not getting fights, making plexing valuable). if they did this right now, and then spent months working out whatever they want to do next, this would be the best approach to take. most people in the room like this and i got a pretty good round of applause for it.
theres probably a whole heap more that i will remember and add over the coming days etc. |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:41:00 -
[46] - Quote
ELECTR0FREAK wrote:Elmanketticks wrote:CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents. Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation. It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup. I support it.
they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea.
|
BOCCO BREARLEY
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
+1 good post Zero agree with everything you said. Awesome that CCP have spent time on little old us in FW.
Station stuff made me laugh as someone mentioned it on coms in passing and half my ships have already moved to Tuo :P - "Advanced Chicken Upgrade" lvl 5 completed for me over 1 year ago
I'd only like to add one thing and thats can we have a set of top hats only available in FW for our characters? |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:39:00 -
[48] - Quote
Preventing docking is a stupid idea.
It creates an incentive to leave militia and fight as a pirate. This is going to make people leave militia instead of join it. This is the opposite of what CCP want to achieve. |
Kneebone
K-H Light Industries
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 22:16:00 -
[49] - Quote
Adding datacores to FW LP is simply a dumb idea. Datacores have been around long before FW and have no logical reason to be part of FW LP. If you want to make a change, add them to the R&D corp's LP stores. This eliminates the passive RP generation you want to decrease, while not affected industry/non combat players who are the ones that use datacores.
Also those of us that trained the associated science skills should get a refund. The only reason many people trained those skills were for RP, not invention. If people use them for invention they can go right back to doing it while those of us that do RP only can use them elsewhere. The skill for interacting with R&D agents should be completely refunded if those goes through as well. |
Bud Good
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
I agree with most of the previous posters who do not like the idea of limiting station access in FW space to the faction that controls the system. I was in 0.0 space, and prefer FW because it is simpler. I just want to have some fun fights, and don't really want to bother with the complexity of 0.0. For this reason, I personally do not want FW to become a low-sec version of 0.0.
I think a decent compromise with regard to station access in faction warfare systems would be to make it so that the militia corp stations are always accessible to that particular militia regardless of who controls the system (for example, members of Amarr Militia should always be allowed to access any 24th Imperial Crusade station) . However, all of the other stations in a system could be accessible only to the faction that controls the system. This would benefit a faction that captures an enemy system, as they would then have a place to dock in enemy territory. At the same time, it would not overly punish the losing faction as long as they were smart enough to store their stuff in a militia station.
Just my initial thoughts. I haven't really thought about them in great detail yet. |
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
66
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:08:00 -
[51] - Quote
Docking rights need to be tied to standings as well as militia membership, so FWarriors can't just drop out of militia with a carrier alt and a mach and grief stations so that we have the same lame bullshit that we have now.
And as far as casual pvp goes, if you don't want to risk losing your systems, you can move back to high sec, or just move in with a larger militia corp that is actually willing to defend their home. More consequences means higher stakes, higher stakes mean more people involved in FW occupancy, and more people involved means more and better fights. It's a win-win imo.
Even now, systems are not flipped that quickly unless one side just gives up or is totally outclassed. With more people playing it will bog down the times as well, so you'll have plenty of opportunity to defend your area. Not to mention, if you don't want to participate in the territory part of FW, you're going to have a much harder time earning isk that you need to pvp with. So you can simply defend your home area by plexing and still make enough to be able to keep affording ships that you fight with in pvp. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio? |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:33:00 -
[53] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio?
Sounds like nullsec to me, and we all know how nullsec is for dynamic and fast paced gang action.
with the major blob of the enemy fleet camping the in/out gates to highsec. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1075
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:13:00 -
[54] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:I don't know what a datacore is either lol
Neither do the devs, apparently ;)
To understand what data cores are used for, you'll need to read up about Invention (which is where T2 stuff comes from). |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:21:00 -
[55] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio?
Sounds like nullsec to me, and we all know how nullsec is for dynamic and fast paced gang action.
It's how we did it back in the old days, it honestly would not bother me. And if I get camped in, then it's my own fault. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:24:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:. GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
I would suggest this is the wrong choice. Full disclosure, I do not have any R&D points or do any R&D.
Make R&D active instead of passive. Make it cost players some time and some goods of various sorts, somewhat like it was in the lottery days.
Eve needs more separation of activities and resources, needs more divisions of labor and specialization, not consolidation into convoluted configurations of unrelated activities and rewards. |
Wraithik
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:35:00 -
[57] - Quote
The draw to FW for me was to support my faction (lore) and get some good fights (PVP) while living in Low Sec (risk).
Change feedback: LP for Plexing and PVP is great! Plexes are currently pointless. Ask yourselfGǪcan I replace my losses by Plexing / PVPing? This needs to be considered when making these decisions.
LP for system upgrades: Systems should be upgradeable, but the upgrades should only benefit the paying faction. Make each upgrade level spawn faction NPCGÇÖs on the gates, stations, and iHub. The higher level of sov, the more / higher quality the NPCGÇÖs. This would prevent enemy militia gate camps in sovereign (upgraded) space, and provided a defensive advantage. In warfare, the defenders always have the advantage of fortification. This change would provide that advantage. If neutrals attack the navy, then the navy attacks back. If neutrals attack a friendly militia member, then the navy joins the fight. Let us feel like part of the faction we are fighting for, and give us a reason to invest LP into our systems. This would also go hand-in-hand with your (CCP) stated goal of giving NPCGÇÖs more PVP like abilities.
Station lockout is terrible. Follow the above idea and put navy spawns at each station to prevent enemies from playing station games in non-sovereign space. Neutrals suffer no ill effects; as well they shouldnGÇÖt since they are not in the war.
Datacores to FW LP doesnGÇÖt make sense. Please donGÇÖt do this. Spend your developer time on fixing the T2 BPO issues that people rage about constantly. Datacores and invention are not brokenGǪplease donGÇÖt spend time working on things that players do NOT want changed.
EVE Dust link: Here comes the good idea fairyGǪall those vehicles, guns, barges, etcGǪseed those to ONLY the FW LP store. We (FW pilots) need a way to make ISK. If you nerf the LP from FW missions and increase the PVP / offensive plex value you will have a winning, non-farmable combination. Defensive plexing should give drastically less LP since a zero SP pilot can just sit in the site and cloak up/warp off when hostiles come in. Offensive plex payout should decrease as a faction acquires more systemsGǪprevents steamrolling by major alliances.
Amarr Victor! |
Hellanna
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:33:00 -
[58] - Quote
So for those of us that don't PvP/Combat and just like the Industrial side of the game, are we now getting screwed out of the standings gain we had to go through? Are we going to now have to rely on PvPers for the majority of the datacores on the market? |
Hellanna
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:ELECTR0FREAK wrote:Elmanketticks wrote:CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ...
Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents. Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation. It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup. I support it. they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea.
Datacores are used by industrialist. Not many PvPers are going to buy datacores with their LP from FW. Prices will skyrocket and so will the price of t2 mods. Make them available more through active missioning from R&D agents if they want to nerf the passive...don't make us PvP for them, they prices are just going to skyrocket if the do that.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:57:00 -
[60] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea.
Datacores are not an ISK faucet, they are a material faucet.
Yes it should not be a passive activity, 100% agree. No they should not be in FW. Activities should not generate too many kinds of rewards. This removes incentive from other players in other parts of the game to specialize and accomplish goals. |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:52:00 -
[61] - Quote
OK, now I understand the motivation behind DC's moving into FW having watched that interview on topten ... err, tenton rather
Instead of moving data cores to FW, add something else to the build / invention process using the same free market mechanic. |
Lukas Rox
Torchwood Archive
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
I dislike the idea of FW being the main source of Datacores for T2. Datacores are not an ISK faucet! You don't get ISK from the R&D agents, you get Datacores. And Datacores are materials, not ISK. You can sell them for ISK, yes. But you can also use them for invention.
From RP point of view, its the industrialists who should be scientists as well. From RL point of view, most pilots who fly PVP are not interested in Industry, so Datacores will not be high on their list of interest if they can sell Navy Domis and Navy Scorps. There is a risk of a serious increase in t2 prices, fuelling the inflation.
MAYBE a solution here would be introduction of Level 5 R&D agents available solely for pilots who participate in FW?
Everything else looks quite solid, enough to get me involved in Gallente militia again. I don't mind being unable to dock in Jita, as I have an alt there (most players do). |
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:29:00 -
[63] - Quote
Fill disclosure from me.
Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.
And data cores certainly are isk faucets. |
Nephilim Xeno
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 12:01:00 -
[64] - Quote
I don't think denying docking access to all stations is a really good idea to promote fights in FW. It might give you a reason to plex but that does not change the fact that plexing mostly sucks atm. Uness plexing gets a complete overhaul or redesign this is a no go imo. It will just drive people away from FW in the long run
First and foremost before FW LP-Stores are improved, the missions have to be changed to make it absolutly impossible to do them in stealth bombers!!! Even if you have an alt speedtanking. Maybe add some Spider drones. Also NPCs in the plexes should be equal in tank and dmg across all 4 militas. Uniform damage distribution and similar turret tracking and missle spams no matter what faction. In exchange remove all EW from the plex rats Also give every Mission a fail objective that the hostile milita can do to make the mission fail. Atm the only way to keep enemies from completing the mission is to camp it non stop for 8 hours.. If people want their FW LP they should be ready to fight for them I am not sure if datacores are the best way to improve the FW store. Decryptors might be a better idea and whould help invention more, especially ship invention which has always a hard time to compete with BPOs If FW stores had decent stuff it would definalty be an isk sink BUT the biggest issue of the stores are the necessary tags that you need and their extremy unequal distribution among the npcs you kill. Very few tags are actually usefull and they are quite rare. Maybe give us the option to convert tags into some kind of FW currency that together with LP and isk is used to get items in the store. Also give the FW stores all BPC copies of their faction. ( I want navy baddons in the lp store!
Making occupancy mean something is a good thing in general BUT it's importand that it scales well for the loosing side, otherwise people will just join the winning side and the other side will just quit due to facing insane odds
It's not easy but definalty possible. Maybe scale rewards with something like (number of your miltia real accounts/number of hostile milita real account) * BaseRewar
Also a milita needs some kind of council or leadership that can remove obvious spies from their milita
Make Fleet adverts better so i can allow all players from my milita to join and only disallow the known spies that i have set to -5 or -10 because atm this is not possible with the fleet finder
I still have a lot of ideas to improve FW but its just too much to write them all down
Just keep 1 thing in mind. FW players do not want FW to be anything like 0.0. We don't want blob warfare. We don't want CTA's or the necessity for them. We dont want supercapital blobs to ruin our fun. FW should not be like "I have to login and play otherwise we are going to loose the System and are screwed :(" but more like "I want to login because there is a System to fight over and there is a lot of fun to be had! :)" |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
777
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 13:48:00 -
[65] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:Fill disclosure from me.
Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.
And data cores certainly are isk faucets.
No, they're not ISK faucets - full stop. They are a datacore (materials / item) faucet, but those only have value because other players agree to buy them at a particular price point. You can't sell them to NPCs, therefore you cannot use them to create ISK out of thin air.
The simple rules for what is an ISK faucet vs sink:
- If the ISK moves from your account into another player's account, it is neither a faucet or sink. - If the ISK moves from your account into an NPC's account (removing it from circulation), it is a sink. - If the ISK moves from an NPC's wallet into yours (bounties, NPC buy orders, mission rewards), it's a faucet.
|
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:01:00 -
[66] - Quote
Exactly. You so nothing except train skills, once. And npc corps give you something that is converted to isk (either directly our indirectly). e.g. faucet. Using the direct ccp definition it is a mission reward.
I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. Its basic common sense. |
Andrea Griffin
195
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:31:00 -
[67] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done. I agree that we should not be locked out of stations, but for a different reason. Being locked out of stations in enemy territory will reduce the amount of available PvP and make people more risk averse.
Why, do you ask?
Because if this change is implemented and you lose a ship, you'll be forced to fly to non-enemy space in order to re-ship. That will SUCK and make people more risk averse - not because they'll lose their ship, but because they might have to go 10 jumps out in order to get something new to fly.
Also, what happens to all my assets currently in enemy territory, or assets in a system when occupancy changes? Or I'm out on a roam in enemy territory but it's time for me to log - I can't dock up? Personally I don't mind logging off in space, I do it all the time (I prefer it to stations), but a lot of people will not like that at all.
No thank you. This would be a terrible move for the more casual nature of FW.
If you want to do something with the stations, then make repair services cost more, have a very high market transaction tax, whatever - but don't restrict docking.
Unless - and this is a big unless that I would love to see - you also make this consistent with criminals. Criminals -5 and below should also not be able to dock in empire stations. However, to balance this, start adding pirate stations throughout lowsec which will allow anyone to dock. Complete with mission agents.
This would make sense on MANY levels (why does any empire corporation allow criminals to dock anyway), make lowsec attractive (people can run pirate missions without dealing with nullsec), and pave the way for future pirate involvement in faction warfare. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
45
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 15:14:00 -
[68] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote:Muad 'dib wrote:please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done. I agree that we should not be locked out of stations, but for a different reason. Being locked out of stations in enemy territory will reduce the amount of available PvP and make people more risk averse. Why, do you ask? Because if this change is implemented and you lose a ship, you'll be forced to fly to non-enemy space in order to re-ship. That will SUCK and make people more risk averse - not because they'll lose their ship, but because they might have to go 10 jumps out in order to get something new to fly. Also, what happens to all my assets currently in enemy territory, or assets in a system when occupancy changes? Or I'm out on a roam in enemy territory but it's time for me to log - I can't dock up? Personally I don't mind logging off in space, I do it all the time (I prefer it to stations), but a lot of people will not like that at all. No thank you. This would be a terrible move for the more casual nature of FW. If you want to do something with the stations, then make repair services cost more, have a very high market transaction tax, whatever - but don't restrict docking.
This, don't deny docking.. I haven't been in FW for ages but when I was, all the fun was basing deep in the enemy systems and having reinforcements close by. This will definitely not make FW less blobby, at least. |
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
196
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:47:00 -
[69] - Quote
I thought the vision for FW was a place for casual smaller gang pvp, for the weekend warrior, a fun thing anyone can do with one of their char slots, right?
If you like to fly more than a rifter and pew more than once a week, you need hauler alts to fetch stuff in enemy high sec, if you have bad sec (from low sec defense) perhaps another one also to fly what you can fly to fly it out if your hauler cant haul etc
This is getting a bit silly with the sov stuff.
Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.
everyone knows pvp in eve, if it lasts more than a few minutes out of your hours online you are lucky. right? :P http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
429
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:09:00 -
[70] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:Fill disclosure from me.
Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.
And data cores certainly are isk faucets.
A faucet is a game mechainc that introduces something to the game world, a sink is something that takes away from the game world.
An ISK faucet introduces ISK. A mineral faucet introduces minerals. Faucet is the noun, "ISK" or "Mineral" are attributive nouns, they define the type of faucet. R&D agents are data core faucets. Rat bounties are ISK faucets. |
|
uredo
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
Yes to LP for kills (provided it cant be exploited by killing alts) Yes to LP for plexes Yes to less LP for missioning, and to balancing the missions properly (i.e no more stealth bombers farming)
Yes to things that provide lots of good fights and some isk to fund them
No to spending LP on system upgrades and cyno jammers No to station lockouts
No to 0.0 sov-lite
And please can the Market Geeks stop being the class nerd. Datacores may not be literally an ISK faucet, but they certainly are passive income, and that is plainly what was meant. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 21:25:00 -
[72] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:I don't see it as that big a deal honestly. It's not like you're pushed out of your area completely, you can always fall back to high sec or elsewhere and continue to fight. You can never be fully pushed out of the warzone. Not to mention it also serves the function of establishing an organic frontline, since you won't be able to maintain operations too far from your own space due to logistics and enemy reinforcements.
You can't really fall back to high sec if you're perma flashy.
Muad 'dib wrote:Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.
This.
I've been waiting years for FW to get fixed, for some reward to plexing, and now it's getting turned into nullsec like garbage... If I wanted nullsec I would have already gone there. |
Atraxerxes
22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 22:35:00 -
[73] - Quote
One Question.
If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?
Yes. We're back and actively recruiting your spy alts.
AX |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 23:26:00 -
[74] - Quote
No because you will have failed to meet some arbitrary condition that had nothing to do with you taking all systems :) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2151
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
The simple rules for what is an ISK faucet vs sink:
- If the ISK moves from your account into another player's account, it is neither a faucet or sink. - If the ISK moves from your account into an NPC's account (removing it from circulation), it is a sink. - If the ISK moves from an NPC's wallet into yours (bounties, NPC buy orders, mission rewards), it's a faucet.
Thanks Bob, this is correct. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2151
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 00:23:00 -
[76] - Quote
uredo wrote:
Yes to LP for kills (provided it cant be exploited by killing alts)
Yes to LP for plexes
Yes to less LP for missioning, and to balancing the missions properly (i.e no more stealth bombers farming)
Yes to things that provide lots of good fights and some isk to fund them
No to spending LP on system upgrades and cyno jammers
No to station lockouts
No to 0.0 sov-lite
This is by far the overwhelming message I am hearing from players.
The cyno jammers are station lockouts are controversial, they COULD have tremendous value if implemented correctly, this is why I advocate CCP focus on the "Yes" Items above, make sure those make it in first, and than focus the rest of their time on balancing the cyno jammer / station lockout issue and not ******* that up, and saving themselves the wasted effort of complicated LP upgrades to systems and sov-lite stuff.
I think the infrastructure stuff has a little merit if tweaked, but only if its automated and tied to Victory Points, so that the process flows easier and only requires that Faction Warfare pilots fight each other, not have to sacrifice LP and cut into their ship replacement funds. We need that isk income to keep fighting.
I also don't like them calling this "sov" instead of occupancy, I think occupancy fits the lore better and discourages them from "streamlining" 0.0 and FW gameplay, which is something I think we've all universally agreed is a bad bad move. The justification that calling this Sov "increases perceived value" is a really weak argument for something that opens the door to a meshing of two independent game play styles.
Uredo's list is the nuts of bolts of what the community reaction has been and what I'm gathering at the moment, keep the feedback coming strong. The more voices that speak up the greater influence we have here. I'm going to be doing a lot of writing / collating of posts this week, so that when I take office on April 4 I can immediately start working with the developers to find out precisely what we can change / prevent here and what is too late.
Nice work everyone, keep it up! Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Annah Kitheran
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:12:00 -
[77] - Quote
Nephilim Xeno wrote:the missions have to be changed to make it absolutly impossible to do them in stealth bombers!!!.
I agree wholeheartedly to be honest. The general idea of FW missions seems to be to bring in more targets albeit perhaps helpless carebear targets. The issue is simple, it's next to zero risk if you know what you are doing. I'm reasonably confident I could announce my mission systems in amarr militia chat and the worst anyone would do to me was delay me a couple of hours. Catching a bomber pilot in lowsec who doesn't want to be caught (and lets be fair what does a bomber want to be caught by anyway?) is next to impossible barring pretty elementary piloting error. I'm not saying it can't happen or even doesn't happen but it's certainly not likely enough to warrant hunting them in most cases. The only even close to reliable way I have seen in terms of PvPing FW mission runners is the wonderful rocket launcher fit stealth bombers. To be honest props to them they get some good kills but I'm pretty certain they miss a lot more than they hit and the fact that the most reliable way to get PvP out of this feature is in essence a trollfit is for me at least slightly telling.
Nephilim Xeno wrote:Making occupancy mean something is a good thing in general BUT it's importand that it scales well for the loosing side, otherwise people will just join the winning side and the other side will just quit due to facing insane odds
To a point certainly. FW is probably amongst the longest running active conflicts in EVE, most other wars reach a natural end point: ransom paid, hostile alliance failcascades, no targets left cba paying the wardec fee. It's a difficult balance to strike once ANY consequences are added to be honest but I will say I am not excessively worried about either side "losing" in light of the new lo-sec ideas thrown around at fanfest also. If you can't reasonably fight the WTs (either because they are not present or they are too numerous/skilled/scary etc.) then piracy is going to be an awful lot less problematic with the lessening hi-sec restrictions and easier sec recovery.
Nephilim Xeno wrote:Maybe scale rewards
Surely market forces will do this anyway? If there are less LP on the market then less navy geddons/fleet phoons/navy scorps/navy dominixes will be being listed so prices will climb as the stockpiles run out...
Nephilim Xeno wrote:Also a milita needs some kind of council or leadership that can remove obvious spies from their milita
Would be wonderful if potentially problematic and also hugely abusable. I do however think the spy problem is massively overblown sometimes. A lot of the time fleet movements (and to a lesser extend compositions) can be anticipated simply because we've all flown against or with or round each other for in many cases two or three years, people are predictable whether they mean to be or not...
Nephilim Xeno wrote:Make Fleet adverts better so i can allow all players from my milita to join and only disallow the known spies that i have set to -5 or -10 because atm this is not possible with the fleet finder
This would be amazing and do wonders for intercorp co-operation in militia. |
Annah Kitheran
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
5
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 11:13:00 -
[78] - Quote
Nephilim Xeno wrote:FW players do not want FW to be anything like 0.0. We don't want blob warfare. We don't want CTA's or the necessity for them. We dont want supercapital blobs to ruin our fun. FW should not be like "I have to login and play otherwise we are going to loose the System and are screwed :(" but more like "I want to login because there is a System to fight over and there is a lot of fun to be had! :)"
I'll be unpopular and say I could live with sov warfare locking folks out of stations. Providing a few things; firstly it needs to take longer, I recall a month or so back Vard flipped twice in 23 hours, this is daft pure and simple. Not sure how you would go about changing this, twice as many plexes would I think break even the most hardened of pilots and nobody wants alarm clock ops in FW so I'm hesitant to start screaming for RF timers. Secondly I think there needs to potentially be some cooldown for evaccing ships/assets perhaps? I'm really unsure... On the other hand it would end station game PvP in FW which I would love because station ring PvP is a personal bugbear of mine. It would also force fights towards the frontlines (15 jumps into enemy lowsec will be awkward for reships and repairs so I suspect folks will be better off plexing closer to home) without ruining the sandbox and saying GÇ£no you cannot attack here, I don't care how clever your plan isGÇ¥.
Muad'dib wrote:Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.
This is also true and I think we can at least potentially have the best of both worlds IF the sov system is set up to work with that.
At present in the minmatar/amarr WZ what will happen if these changes come in most likely is the off TZs will plex each others home systems as a troll (Minnie USTZ will probably flip Kourm/Kam/Auga Amarr USTZ will flip Arzad/Vard) and everyone will wake up after a night's sleep unable to redock into their PvP hangars.
Pure and simple I don't think this is acceptable so either the sov consequences need to be rethought heavily *or* they need to give us a sov system that works. Personally I think implementing a working sov system is needed *before* you tack on a series of consequences. Regardless what CCP may think the current sov system is far from perfect, it is a marked improvement on the previous iteration for certain but it is certainly not resilient enough for consequences at present. A large portion of the balancing forces involved in the fun pewpew we are having plexing at the moment is that for many FW pilots it is simply optional so why bother, if you get all sides plexing at full strength it will break very, very quickly.
Anyhow that be my tuppence, thanks for reading my walloftext
o7
(Sorry if I sound like I'm picking on Neph I actually just wanted to build on his post, I thought it was a good one and figured that me and him in public agreeing might well turn heads *dons the flame suit*) |
Prescience
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 13:09:00 -
[79] - Quote
Slightly off topic I know and I apologise... I always read Factional Warfare as Fictional Warfare... Crazy me! |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
149
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:51:00 -
[80] - Quote
Atraxerxes wrote:One Question. If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal? LOL, you (22nd) didn't get one the first time! (One of the biggest traveshamockeries in history of Eve btw) |
|
Pasocon Otaku
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:58:00 -
[81] - Quote
From an RP sense, I think DCs should remain with R&D agents -- which is what 'decreased' sounds like -- still there (but less).
I guess FW or whoever could be said to have their own (NPC) scientists, cranking out DCs to be bought with LP ... what I don't like is the 'multiple main sources' for a resource (DCs) -- you'll have one competing with the other, and see a Gresham's Law -type effect.
If a character invests 3-4 months on skill training and faction raising, it's not unreasonable to generate 400 datacores/month -- if they're top-sellers, that's 120 000 000 ISK/month. How's that compare with one afternoon of solo missioning, or an hour or two of incursioning?
If CCP feels that relative trickle is still a bit too much for its level of passivity (training/factioning initially, setting up agents, picking up every-so-often, re-training when market demand switches to other DCs, switching agents ... ), might I suggest a simplified P.I. system? You set a cycle with your R&D Agents (say 1d-14d), which determines how many RPs they generate for that time ... then you have to log back in to re-set your cycle. Otherwise the same. Set the value of RP/hour such that the 1 day cycle is 120% of current, 3 day results in the same yield as now, while the 14d cycle is about 50-60% of the current rate. I think there'd be a large net drop in the number of DCs 'passively' introduced to the economy. |
Nephilim Xeno
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 20:05:00 -
[82] - Quote
well looks like everything i just wrote vanished -.- |
Sentinel Mantik
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 22:43:00 -
[83] - Quote
What about two stations (One for each militia) in a FW System.
Militiants only can dock in their station. The stations are camped by NPC of the occupancy holder (makes docking/undocking harder but not impossible) The NPC scale with the occupancy level Neutrals can't dock on any of those stations
This is war-territory. If you won't be in a melitia, then GTFO of that System!
This should be WAR and not highsec or 0.0
PS: autocorrection of german smartphones is terrible, Sorry if it may be hard to read Minmatar 4 life
Focus on ceptor and dictors
|
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:02:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote:This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.
GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.
Great Idea. If nothing else, this needs to be done.
GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
Why?Turning FW into another Isk faucet is not a good idea, nor is it to try and lure people into FW because they have to to do invention.Also kinda screws everyone who went and researched skills and then ground missions to get RP.
GÇóAfter that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.
Meh, the problem with that is you are gonna have one side get buried and nor be able to dig themselves out ever. Losing access to stations is enough.the ability to run FW missions is also enough reward, and enough penalty if the systems that hold your factions FW agents fall, and you can no longer access them to run them to begin with.LP store changes are not such a good idea.
GÇóWe also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.
NO.we do not want sov warfare, or the game mechanics that come with it. No infrastructure exists, and rightly so. The change in title would be a misnomer.the title Command Bunker is appropriate, as that is all it really does, is signify and in theory excercise command and contol over the State assets in system.
GÇóWe approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.
OK
GÇóWe talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.
OK
GÇóLack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.
OK
GÇóThe EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.
No.
|
Trader13
NOT A FRONT
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 11:35:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Navigator wrote: GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
I am quite unhappy with this change.
EVE is a 'long view' game, you plan to play for years so often you'll do something now that you see as paying itself off in the long term. I know many of us (myself included) have spent the time to train for maximum data core returns on our accounts (3x characters with 6 agents each) and spent the time to raise the required standing for maximum gain.
Its no small investment in time and SP and has trivial isk/per hour when compared to almost every other way to make money in the game. It is done with the future in mind, much like buying a blueprint that won't pay itself off for years or training that last level of Advanced Mass Production to really squeeze everything you can from an account.
Surely there are other carrots you can dangle in the faction warfare LP store? As others have pointed out, it doesn't make sense that invention/industry supplies should come from FW. While I still completely disagree with the idea of even adding them, I think nerfing the passive accumulation is adding salt to the wound, the additional source of data cores that isn't limited by characters / accounts will likely reduce the price alone.
Is this change still under consideration or is it now set in stone?
|
Sentinel Mantik
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 14:06:00 -
[86] - Quote
I think posting in two threads about the same is not that positiv.
Maybe a Community Representive can merge the thread in the General Forum and this one for that all discussion is in the same place. (or start a new one while closing the old ones?)
A quick overview what player-suggestions the DEV think about would be nice for those that had no chance to be on one of the round tables at fanfest. Minmatar 4 life
German player.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2157
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:25:00 -
[87] - Quote
Sentinel Mantik wrote:I think posting in two threads about the same is not that positiv. Maybe a Community Representive can merge the thread in the General Forum and this one for that all discussion is in the same place. (or start a new one while closing the old ones?) A quick overview what player-suggestions the DEV think about would be nice for those that had no chance to be on one of the round tables at fanfest.
I agree. Let's make https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=85156 the place where we keep the conversation going.
Single thread is much easier for the developers to follow and will be much more effective in getting our voices heard. Thanks for keeping this constructive everyone! I need your help to keep the conversation and the feedback flowing. Get your friends into the forums to share their opinions!
Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
yashik
The Great Awakening of Phoenix
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 12:35:00 -
[88] - Quote
R&D / datacore / passive income - i don't like idea to lower it down,
1) price of datacores and theyr farming isn't that profitable as someone could think, 2) lot of time and skill investment for a small passive income wasn't worth that much as i expected
and now... it should be even less ? i'm not too excited about this change, especialy when i bought 3monts ago second eve account just to train up alt for a slighlty more passive bonus, i know 80mil per month isn't too much, but at least it's 1,2frigates that i can buy and pop in pvp |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |