Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 20:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:MotherMoon wrote:So quitg FW suddenly increases your standings to the point you can dock with thier stations?
you would have t grind like NUTS to get into the ammar FW systems even when your NOT IN FW, becuase while in FW, your standings with ammar tanked. As I understood the Fanfest presentation, as long as you aren't an active member of the enemy militia, you would be able to dock regardless of standings. If this is not the case then the idea is even more broken than I thought. I guess NPCs aren't worried about spais docking their stations. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Cal Stantson
War and Order Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
Another problem with this idea which hasn't been mentioned yet is that it favours players with more, and especially older, alts.
One way of circumventing the docking restrictions would be to have a neutral carrier alt own all the goods. When the FW character needed to reship from a station they were locked out of, they could simply put the ship inside the carrier, undock it, and reship from the carrier's hangar.
If you have a carrier alt you can set up a base in any system. If you do not have a carrier alt you cannot. This skews the game heavily in favour of the older, richer players. It will not encourage people to join FW.
|
baltec1
858
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:49:00 -
[63] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Most faction war pilots aren't so risk adverse. I can't imagine going 2 weeks of active play without losing a ship.
We lose allot of cheapish ships and tend to quickly jump back into the fray.
Also you need to have a variety of ships available nearby so you can bring it into the various plexes.
A total ban on docking in any stations in an enemy occupied system is indeed quite dumb. Other less onerous station restrictions are something they can/should consider.
Less risk adverse and more like I pick my targets better than you.
There is nothing dumb about losing access to a station, its a massive insentive to acctually fight this war. People who say to simply leave the milita and turn pirate seem to forget that when you leave you lose access to all of the milita rewards. CCP could solve people quitting the milita to evac stuff by putting a month long timer before you could rejoin. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 21:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
So what rewards would those be Baltec, A massively devalued LP store? The possibility of some control over cyno jammers?
Nothing CCP has proposed outweighs the disadvantages of losing docking rights and losing access to your stuff. Even if it did, why would you join anything but one of the winning militias?
|
Sollis Vynneve
Legendary Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
I havent been in fw long , if docking rights are revoked im gonna have to pull out of fw cos the logistics after this supposed improvement are gonna cripple new fw players.
I for one think ccp have lost the plot and they need to rethink this idea, even if their idea was to revoke docking rights to opposing militia stations that would be something at least then fw players could dock at non opposing militia stations.
This is an idea but it still has its draw backs, militia pilots fight pirates which has been brought up earlier, this would give roaming pirate gangs an unfair advantage and force fw pilots to rethink their enlistment in fw.
CCp need to think before they act on this idea and consider the repercussions that could happen. |
T'san Manaan
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:01:00 -
[66] - Quote
I like restricting enemies from docking in each others station. This was one of the better Ideas in the presentation. In fact i do not think they are taking it far enough. I think that in addition to not docking in an enemy militias station no player should be able to dock in a station that they have a -5 or lower standing with.
Also I think that when you take a system your militias agents replace the enemies agents in the station. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:19:00 -
[67] - Quote
T'san Manaan wrote:I like restricting enemies from docking in each others station. This was one of the better Ideas in the presentation. In fact i do not think they are taking it far enough. I think that in addition to not docking in an enemy militias station no player should be able to dock in a station that they have a -5 or lower standing with.
Restricting it to standings actually makes more sense since you can't just leave militia and gain access to stations again.
Quote: Also I think that when you take a system your militias agents replace the enemies agents in the station.
This is a very bad idea. This makes it possible for one faction to have a very large number of agents and another to have virtually none. It encourages people to join the winning militias and leave the losing ones. This makes the winning ones stronger so they win more so they get stronger. It's a vicious cycle that could easily end with some militias being virtually dead.
|
baltec1
859
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:35:00 -
[68] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:
Nothing CCP has proposed outweighs the disadvantages of losing docking rights and losing access to your stuff. Even if it did, why would you join anything but one of the winning militias?
What exactly is stopping them from doing that now?
You could lose everything and still have the ever safe high sec right next door. Its not like you have to travel 40 odd jumps to get back into your warzone like I have to. Even if you do have your stuff in a low sec station, the enemy will need at least 24-48 hours to take the station which is plenty of time to evac.
|
Lady Aja
33
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:37:00 -
[69] - Quote
asking to ccp to allow fw members to dock in enmies stations is like docking the bismark in english ports to get repairs.
so ccp allows you to dock in hostile stations. but you cant repair your ship. use fittings etc...
stattion gamees will change to suit shierld tankers as we all know you dont need to "repair" them. or... WAIT FOR IT! player trades his ship to an alt who repairs/fits it for him then trades it back....
just dont allow them to dock up ffs Matar fw pilots are kicking up the biggest stink because of systems liek huola where they are campign a fair bit. not that i blame them ofc lol.
cant have ya cake and eat it too. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:42:00 -
[70] - Quote
Quote:What exactly is stopping them from doing that now?
The lack of any real advantage in being in one militia rather than another. People joining for reasons unrelated to the strength of the militia keeps things at least somewhat balanced as it's almost random.
Quote:You could lose everything and still have the ever safe high sec right next door. Its not like you have to travel 40 odd jumps to get back into your warzone like I have to. Even if you do have your stuff in a low sec station, the enemy will need at least 24-48 hours to take the station which is plenty of time to evac.
Or you could just leave militia and be able to keep your stuff wherever you wanted it. As I've said a dozen times in this thread, it's not that we couldn't work around a docking ban, it's that it creates an unwanted incentive to not be in militia.
|
|
baltec1
859
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 00:53:00 -
[71] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Or you could just leave militia and be able to keep your stuff wherever you wanted it. As I've said a dozen times in this thread, it's not that we couldn't work around a docking ban, it's that it creates an unwanted incentive to not be in militia.
Only for the cowards who dont want to fight. They are the same ones who joined the winning side when I was in FW so they could go pve in peace. This system works perfectly fine in 0.0 which is much more savage when you lose. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lady Aja wrote:asking to ccp to allow fw members to dock in enmies stations is like docking the bismark in english ports to get repairs.
I'm afraid this analogy fails completely when applied to FW. The key difference is that the captain of the Bismarck didn't have a "quit Kreigsmarine" button on his bridge that would let him have access to British ports while still actively hunting atlantic convoys. If he did he would have been a fool not to press it.
In the fanfest proposals we would have exactly such a button. Docking in stations in enemy territory doesn't make much sense from a roleplay perspective. Letting people quit militia and then be able to dock makes no sense from a roleplay or a practical perspective. Keeping docking rights really is the lesser of two evils.
Quote:so ccp allows you to dock in hostile stations. but you cant repair your ship. use fittings etc...
stattion gamees will change to suit shierld tankers as we all know you dont need to "repair" them. or... WAIT FOR IT! player trades his ship to an alt who repairs/fits it for him then trades it back....
Docking rights are what was proposed at fanfest, but the addition of any significant penalty is much the same.
|
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
Quote: Only for the cowards who dont want to fight.
What about the people who want to fight but don't want to lose docking rights and so quit militia?
Quote:They are the same ones who joined the winning side when I was in FW so they could go pve in peace.
Or PvP without docking penalties?
Quote:This system works perfectly fine in 0.0 which is much more savage when you lose.
It. Is. Not. The. Same. System. In. Nullsec.
-In nullsec if you quit your alliance you lose access to many stations. -Under the new proposals you would gain access to many stations.
See the difference? |
baltec1
859
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:10:00 -
[74] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Quote: Only for the cowards who dont want to fight.
What about the people who want to fight but don't want to lose docking rights and so quit militia? Cowards and stupid.
Quote:
It. Is. Not. The. Same. System. In. Nullsec.
-In nullsec if you quit your alliance you lose access to many stations. -Under the new proposals you would gain access to many stations if you quit FW.
See the difference?
You also lose all of the benefits of the milita. However if you stay in the milita your faction stands a much better chance of taking back the station than in 0.0 |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:20:00 -
[75] - Quote
Quote: Cowards and stupid. You'll have to explain to me why people who want to fight more are cowards, and why people who found a more efficient way to fight are stupid. Because frankly it sounds like bullshit.
Quote:You also lose all of the benefits of the milita. However if you stay in the milita your faction stands a much better chance of taking back the station than in 0.0
"The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen."
This is worth a read to see what happens in these situations. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1075
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 01:57:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Being able to dock in stations belonging to a Faction that really hate you is also stupid. The way stations are totally randomly distributed over all Factions is also stupid.
+1 on both counts. Why are Republic Security Services stations located deep in Amarr & Caldari territory? If you're spying on the Amarr, surely you'd use Freedom Exchange or some such?
|
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:06:00 -
[77] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Being able to dock in stations belonging to a Faction that really hate you is also stupid. The way stations are totally randomly distributed over all Factions is also stupid. +1 on both counts. Why are Republic Security Services stations located deep in Amarr & Caldari territory? If you're spying on the Amarr, surely you'd use Freedom Exchange or some such? That's an argument in favour of standings based docking rights, not militia based docking rights. |
Volturius Maximus-Fur
Pro Synergy ACE WRECKING COMPANY
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:20:00 -
[78] - Quote
So let me see if I`ve got this right, as a Caldari militiaman in Gallente controlled space, you think you should have unrestricted access to its infrastructure? Pretty sure that`s quite the opposite of whate you should have.
The simple fact is, you are at war, and you should not have access to facilities `controlled` by the opposing faction, and you should be at a disadvantage. I do however think that putting a mechanic in place to prevent people from hopping between militias and/or going neutral is a given, and it should be significant so as to completely discourage it. Something like, if you leave you can return to your own faction after two weeks, but to join the opposing you have to wait a few months.
No one is going to wait a few months to change from Minmatar to Amarr because the slaves are losing the fight (obviously,) it just wouldnt be worth it.
Edit: As far as the argument about stations belonging to enemy factions in contested territory, those are relics from before the introduction of faction warfare, and indeed it is not unheard of in real war for an occupying force to capture and hold enemy fortifications - yet another argument for restricting access to stations. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 02:49:00 -
[79] - Quote
Quote:So let me see if I`ve got this right, as a Caldari militiaman in Gallente controlled space, you think you should have unrestricted access to its infrastructure? Pretty sure that`s quite the opposite of whate you should have.
The question is not "Should?" it's "What will happen if?". There's no easy way to explain being able to dock from a roleplay perspective, but the consequences of removing it are serious nonetheless. This is the way it has to be. Time dilation, PLEXes, jumpclones, reinforcement timers, armor plates and "grid fu" are all ridiculous from an RP perspective, but they are contrivances that we allow for the sake of gameplay. We have to look at any changes to game mechanics in the same way. "How will this change affect the way players behave?"
Quote:The simple fact is, you are at war, and you should not have access to facilities `controlled` by the opposing faction, and you should be at a disadvantage. I do however think that putting a mechanic in place to prevent people from hopping between militias and/or going neutral is a given, and it should be significant so as to completely discourage it. Something like, if you leave you can return to your own faction after two weeks, but to join the opposing you have to wait a few months.
It doesn't matter if people can hop in and out of militia. It matters that there are things you can gain by not being in militia. That's all it takes for people to leave and others not to join.
Quote:No one is going to wait a few months to change from Minmatar to Amarr because the slaves are losing the fight (obviously,) it just wouldnt be worth it.
It doesn't have to be the same people. Some corps might leave Amarr militia because they are sick of losing to minmatar and go to nullsec, and completely different corps might join minmatar because they are winning. Minmatar are still up and Amarr are still down.
Quote:Edit: As far as the argument about stations belonging to enemy factions in contested territory, those are relics from before the introduction of faction warfare, and indeed it is not unheard of in real war for an occupying force to capture and hold enemy fortifications - yet another argument for restricting access to stations.
That's nice to think about from a roleplay perspective, but it says nothing of the actual changes that will occur in gameplay. |
Volturius Maximus-Fur
Pro Synergy ACE WRECKING COMPANY
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:35:00 -
[80] - Quote
Quote:Time dilation, PLEXes, jumpclones, reinforcement timers, armor plates and "grid fu" are all ridiculous from an RP perspective, but they are contrivances that we allow for the sake of gameplay. We have to look at any changes to game mechanics in the same way. "How will this change affect the way players behave?"
I feel like I can argue the opposite with concern to jumpclones, reinforcement timers, armor plates (?) and even to some extent PLEXes (assuming you are referring to complexes) as having some sort of RP backdrop. How will it affect the way players behave? Well one of two things will happen either a) fw players will actually fight eachother with more vigor than before, and with purpose, or b) there will be a mass exodus because they`ve suddenly realized that the broken system they`ve been playing has been fixed and brought in line with the difficulty level of war in other areas of the game. I honestly expect that if you are in FW for FW than `a` is the more likely thing that will happen here.
An interesting point, while not quite the same, and correct me if I`m wrong and just missed the thread; has anyone noticed that the `Neutral` lowsec residents - the outlaws haven`t been kicking up a **** storm at the prospect of having there ability to resupply themselves made more difficult. I`m of course referring to the proposed cyno jammers. Being that these folks have trained alts to ferry stuff for them in Jump Freighters/Carriers you would think, especially those living in FW systems away from high-sec would be a bit upset at how much harder its going to be to keep there hangars supplied. Yet they haven`t complained?
Quote:It doesn't matter if people can hop in and out of militia. It matters that there are things you can gain by not being in militia. That's all it takes for people to leave and others not to join
Quite simply if they don`t join because it`s too hard, they probably wouldn`t have joined to pew pew like FW was intended for in the first place. And whether its an individual or a corp, leaving to go to nullsec, or being a first timer joining the faction that`s winning, the timers I`ve suggested will have no effect on those. It would only effect the people who want to try and game the system, to get around this change, like a deserter or going AWOL (in r/l terms.) |
|
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
250
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:05:00 -
[81] - Quote
By the way, there are already proven services to move stuff around lowsec, no matter which corp or alliance or faction you are in, and no matter what station your stuff is located in. There is pretty much no risk, it's just an additional hassle. You just won't be able to stage out of a system that you don't officially own. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 04:51:00 -
[82] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:By the way, there are already proven services to move stuff around lowsec, no matter which corp or alliance or faction you are in, and no matter what station your stuff is located in. There is pretty much no risk, it's just an additional hassle. You just won't be able to stage out of a system that you don't officially own.
It's the last part that the whole thread has been about. We knew about the first part already.
|
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:04:00 -
[83] - Quote
Quote:I feel like I can argue the opposite with concern to jumpclones, reinforcement timers, armor plates (?) and even to some extent PLEXes (assuming you are referring to complexes) as having some sort of RP backdrop.
You never wondered how a 1600mm plate can cover all of a 1.6km long Apoc just as easily as it can cover all of a 160m long Guardian? Or how armor plates only have a mass when they're fitted to a ship instead of being carried by one? This is the kind of bizarre stuff we accept without thinking because it makes the game actually work.
Quote: How will it affect the way players behave? Well one of two things will happen either a) fw players will actually fight eachother with more vigor than before, and with purpose, or b) there will be a mass exodus because they`ve suddenly realized that the broken system they`ve been playing has been fixed and brought in line with the difficulty level of war in other areas of the game. I honestly expect that if you are in FW for FW than `a` is the more likely thing that will happen here.
There's nothing to stop people from fighting the other militia just as fiercely as pirates as they can as militia members.
Quote:An interesting point, while not quite the same, and correct me if I`m wrong and just missed the thread; has anyone noticed that the `Neutral` lowsec residents - the outlaws haven`t been kicking up a **** storm at the prospect of having there ability to resupply themselves made more difficult. I`m of course referring to the proposed cyno jammers. Being that these folks have trained alts to ferry stuff for them in Jump Freighters/Carriers you would think, especially those living in FW systems away from high-sec would be a bit upset at how much harder its going to be to keep there hangars supplied. Yet they haven`t complained?
It is a little surprising, but we don't know anything about the mechanics of cynojammers yet so it's harder to complain. Plus it's pretty easy to abuse FW mechanics, so they probably think there's a good chance that they can get an alt in to control the jammer. Hell, maybe they'll just push them into RF and give themselves a brief window to restock by carrier.
Quote:Quite simply if they don`t join because it`s too hard, they probably wouldn`t have joined to pew pew like FW was intended for in the first place. And whether its an individual or a corp, leaving to go to nullsec, or being a first timer joining the faction that`s winning, the timers I`ve suggested will have no effect on those. It would only effect the people who want to try and game the system, to get around this change, like a deserter or going AWOL (in r/l terms.)
You don't need to get around the system when you can simply decline to be part of it. |
Volturius Maximus-Fur
Pro Synergy ACE WRECKING COMPANY
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 05:24:00 -
[84] - Quote
Quote:You never wondered how a 1600mm plate can cover all of a 1.6km long Apoc just as easily as it can cover all of a 160m long Guardian? Or how armor plates only have a mass when they're fitted to a ship instead of being carried by one? This is the kind of bizarre stuff we accept without thinking because it makes the game actually work.
Fair, never considered that.
Quote:There's nothing to stop people from fighting the other militia just as fiercely as pirates as they can as militia members.
I think youve missed the point here; wasnt everyone in FW crying because the system being broke there was no real incentive to fight eachother (other than of course for gfs?) This provides that incentive.
Quote:It is a little surprising, but we don't know anything about the mechanics of cynojammers yet so it's harder to complain. Plus it's pretty easy to abuse FW mechanics, so they probably think there's a good chance that they can get an alt in to control the jammer. Hell, maybe they'll just push them into RF and give themselves a brief window to restock by carrier.
Pretty sure that they mentioned quite clearly how they would work - that it would jam the system for anyone not in that particular FW faction (ie. neuts couldnt cyno, and enemy factions couldnt cyno.) Also seeing as pirates cant flip systems the thought of them effecting some change there is irrelevant, short of infiltration, which is the sort of stuff CCP likes to see.
Quote:You don't need to get around the system when you can simply decline to be part of it.
I think I mentioned this already, but its a pretty fair assumption that if the reason people decline to be a part of FW is because they have to fight eachother to maintain access to stations, those people werent going to join FW to fight other factions anyway. They would be the so-called plague that FW folks have been complaining about, the alts farming LP in missions. This may have the spin-off effect of getting rid of these players like you all wanted in the first place.
Also this was posted in the other FW thread http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve-online/interviews/inferno-part-one
Quite worth the watch as the information on FW, and the reasoning behind why CCP are doing this are both there.
|
baltec1
859
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:07:00 -
[85] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote: You'll have to explain to me why people who want to fight more are cowards, and why people who found a more efficient way to fight are stupid. Because frankly it sounds like bullshit.
People who want to pvp quit a side with a target rich enviroment to join the "winning side" which has less targets to get more kills? Yea, that makes sense.
Quote:"The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen." This is worth a read to see what happens in these situations.
I'll go with my experiences in game over the last 6 years over some philosophical wiki link posted by someone who clearly is far too cowardly to fight in a war. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 14:43:00 -
[86] - Quote
Volturius Maximus-Fur wrote: I think youve missed the point here; wasnt everyone in FW crying because the system being broke there was no real incentive to fight eachother (other than of course for gfs?) This provides that incentive.
But it also provides an incentive to leave FW, and that's the whole problem.
Quote: Pretty sure that they mentioned quite clearly how they would work - that it would jam the system for anyone not in that particular FW faction (ie. neuts couldnt cyno, and enemy factions couldnt cyno.) Also seeing as pirates cant flip systems the thought of them effecting some change there is irrelevant, short of infiltration, which is the sort of stuff CCP likes to see.
Easy. Pirate corps get a couple of carrier alts and cyno alts into FW
Quote:I think I mentioned this already, but its a pretty fair assumption that if the reason people decline to be a part of FW is because they have to fight eachother to maintain access to stations, those people werent going to join FW to fight other factions anyway. They would be the so-called plague that FW folks have been complaining about, the alts farming LP in missions. This may have the spin-off effect of getting rid of these players like you all wanted in the first place. None of this plugs the "pirate gap". The advantage of leaving is still there.
This did not inspire confidence that CCP had thought about the long term consequences of their changes, or knew anything about the motives of people in FW. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 15:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
[quote=baltec1
People who want to pvp quit a side with a target rich enviroment to join the "winning side" which has less targets to get more kills? Yea, that makes sense.[/quote I was talking about the pirate advanage, not the glory hunter problem
[quote "The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
This is worth a read to see what happens in these situations.[/quote
I'll go with my experiences in game over the last 6 years over some philosophical wiki link posted by someone who clearly is far too cowardly to fight in a war.[/quote
So a person's ability to analyze a situation is based on their experience of shooting people? Mighty big epeen you're fondling there.
In reality it's better to think about militia in economic terms. Militia people join up because they gain something from militia. This can be either kills, mission LP, or a sense of RP achievement. In real wars the vast majority of soldiers are compelled to fight, either because they are conscripted or because they are part of a hierarchy that will imprison or execute them if they don't. Since people can quit militia, and indeed quit EVE without being put in front of a firing squad, the incentives for playing must be broadly positive. When it's all about rewards rather than threats it's basically economics
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 18:59:00 -
[88] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Quote: Only for the cowards who dont want to fight.
What about the people who want to fight but don't want to lose docking rights and so quit militia? Cowards and stupid. Quote:
It. Is. Not. The. Same. System. In. Nullsec.
-In nullsec if you quit your alliance you lose access to many stations. -Under the new proposals you would gain access to many stations if you quit FW.
See the difference?
You also lose all of the benefits of the milita. However if you stay in the milita your faction stands a much better chance of taking back the station than in 0.0
It seems we have allot of people who like null sec likeing this change. I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising.
It seems the basic question ccp needs to answer is this:
Do they want one system that provides great frequent small sclae pvp and another that provides great large scale pvp battles, or do they want 2 systems that sorta fails at both?
By trying to blend the two systems they are not going to accomplish either goal very well. Nor will they provide gaming opportunities for a wider audience.
But here its not so much that people will switch sides. (Although some will. some already switch sides when there are no consequences this will only increase if there are bigger consequences) The main problem i see is when people first join faction war they will tend to join the winning side with all of the benefits. So the winning side will continue to get more new recruits and he losing side will continue to starve for them.
This is different than player run situations where alliances can just die and new ones take their place. Who wants to join White Noise now? Well if there are sov null sec style consequences that will be the same situation for a losing faction.
But that said I think allot of people want some consequences to the war. Its just that this particular one is not very good. The consequences should be substantial but not always a direct benefit to the militias. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:15:00 -
[89] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Being able to dock in stations belonging to a Faction that really hate you is also stupid. The way stations are totally randomly distributed over all Factions is also stupid. +1 on both counts. Why are Republic Security Services stations located deep in Amarr & Caldari territory? If you're spying on the Amarr, surely you'd use Freedom Exchange or some such?
As far as the stations specifically owned by the militias or the navys I agree. But the stations owned by private corporations the current mechanics make sense. If you have low standings with the corps faction you have some negatives but thats about it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
308
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:17:00 -
[90] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Fleet Warpsujarento wrote: You'll have to explain to me why people who want to fight more are cowards, and why people who found a more efficient way to fight are stupid. Because frankly it sounds like bullshit.
People who want to pvp quit a side with a target rich enviroment to join the "winning side" which has less targets to get more kills? Yea, that makes sense.
White noise would have a target rich environment are they getting a big influx of pvpers? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |