Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Halete
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
115
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 09:24:00 -
[451] - Quote
Slightly off-topic Kuehnelt, if you're not interested in fighting IO, why not?
I see you guys field similarly sized fleets to the IO death engine when White Lotus have small frigate gangs in the ******* end of the FW zone, and better Logistics fleets.
It seems like the 'investment' suggestion would slow down System flipping too much, hard to say without concrete numbers and testing though. Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
193
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 10:00:00 -
[452] - Quote
Ahazu Sagam wrote:New on SISI:
- warzone control is based on number of systems conquered and thier upgrade status - tier 1 bonus: crap LP offers, no LP gain bonus - tier 2 bonus: bad LP offers, 5% LP gain bonus - max is tier 5 - you see now how hard a system is contested in % Thanks for the update. What does "LP gain bonus" mean since you can't get LP with defensive plexing? Does it increase mission payout - meaning it might be profitable to upgrade mission systems?
|
Roddy Mcrizzle
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 10:11:00 -
[453] - Quote
Well i can say this, If this BS goes ahead i will be leaving militia. I will get all the benefits of being in low sec, w/o penalties... I rarley run fw missions any more as there are too many carebears driving the lp value to nearly 0... I am sitting on over 3m LP and i have no desire to use it...
With all that said, I can stay in low sec same systems i use now. I can still hunt and kill the same people, i just wont sit on a plex timer and spin for 10 - 30 mins.
Truly this is going bring piracy back in force. As all the FW pilots are going to quite worrying about fw as a whole and just kill everything. |
Kuehnelt
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
36
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 11:12:00 -
[454] - Quote
Halete wrote:Slightly off-topic Kuehnelt, if you're not interested in fighting IO, why not?
I see you guys field similarly sized fleets to the IO death engine when White Lotus have small frigate gangs in the ******* end of the FW zone, and better Logistics fleets.
Although it seems you just wanted to complain, you also asked that question. And what strikes me about that question is that, if you'd asked it in local, I would have completely ignored it. More, I would never have encouraged you to ask such a question. And as I've already talked about it, I'll add that I certainly did not exchange pleasantries with Iron Oxide on that occasion, or chat with them about the Amarr militia. So it seems there's a certain danger from my being somewhat bored and far from my pod.
In short, thanks for asking.
Quote:It seems like the 'investment' suggestion would slow down System flipping too much, hard to say without concrete numbers and testing though.
System flipping seems already destined to be slowed down quite a bit, but yeah, I think this feature of Inferno is the most dangerous: different concrete numbers can mean tier 5 systems everywhere, forever, or tier 0 systems everywhere but staging systems, and both of these I think would kill the sov/occupancy/whatever war, by making it impossible in the first case or by making it a game only for chumps in the second case.
So I hope people will continue to report back from SiSi in this thread.
It's clear that station lock-out has already been decided, and after reading the CSM's posts I think that a sov reset (or the lack of one) is also decided. But these numbers can still be influenced. |
Halete
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
115
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 11:39:00 -
[455] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote: It's clear that station lock-out has already been decided, and after reading the CSM's posts I think that a sov reset (or the lack of one) is also decided. But these numbers can still be influenced.
Sorry Kuehn, this is basically all I wanted to talk about. Aren't you worried that this suggestion compounded with what's already pretty much decided would be too much, etc?
Personally I think that if you want your space, you should fight for it.
You kind of dismissed my post on the premise of an 'incident' with IO where no pleasantries were exchanged, but I wasn't aware of such an incident. Was a genuinely curious question. I know that you guys can fleet up. Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
398
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 12:57:00 -
[456] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Dirk Smacker wrote:Hrett wrote: You can speed tank afk offensive plex too. Hence my suggestion of only giving it to both sides when contested.
Or they could make you clear the npc's in order to cap. But I haven't heard anything about touching the plexes themselves. Welcome to my personal hell. There will probably only be cosmetic changes to plexes/NPCs but with a massive added incentive, which means that some of us (read: Amarr) are effectively removed from the plexing game entirely due to the comparatively harder time we have doing that bit....
There has always been a debate about how big of a role the npcs should play. I and others would like to see them disappear altogether and just let the militia players know where plexes are being attacked so they can defend them themselves.
For me I would just like faction war sov warfare to involve pvp instead of pve.
In my experience npcs almost always work to decrease the chances of pvp. But I suppose we could find out some statistics on this. We could ask CCP diagoras if the amount of pvp kills goes up or down in a low sec system when incursions enter those systems. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Val Erian
Azure Horizon Federate Militia
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 13:22:00 -
[457] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:New on SISI:
- warzone control is based on number of systems conquered and thier upgrade status - tier 1 bonus: crap LP offers, no LP gain bonus - tier 2 bonus: bad LP offers, 5% LP gain bonus - max is tier 5 - you see now how hard a system is contested in % Thanks for the update. What does "LP gain bonus" mean since you can't get LP with defensive plexing? Does it increase mission payout - meaning it might be profitable to upgrade mission systems?
I expect the LP Bonus for warzone control is for offers from the LP Store.
I'm still uncertain about the LP from doing plexs. Its clear that no LP from defensive plexing.
But offensive? Is it only taken from upgraded systems or not?
|
Bengal Bob
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 13:35:00 -
[458] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Oh no, Iron Oxide's close to taking Sosan
As a plexing alliance, our stated goal is to take all systems, barring one or two to store our Amarrian pets. Undocking will slow this down far more than dumping LP into a system. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
398
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 13:41:00 -
[459] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote: - we agree that FW should not, absolutely not, be like nullsec, and that players join FW because they're unhappy for one way or another with how nullsec works.
- We need to make sure FW is a stepping stone without just killing the appeal....
This seems pretty contradictory.
What is fw supposed to be a "stepping stone" to, if not null sec? Is it a stepping stone to high sec mission running? Wormholes?
If this is what he said then I think we can see they are still thinking in terms of game designed to railroad people into the "endgame."
If they want to improve the game they need to let go of the whole "stepping stone" idea and make faction war an awesome and unique endgame that will appeal to a certain type of crowd. Preferably a different crowd than those who like null sec.
I really think they are just having a mental block on this. I find it amazing that they CCP soundwave cant see how these changes make faction war more like null sec.
There has been so much discussion of how to drive people to null sec they can't really get this "goal" out of their thinking. They play lip service and say "no we are not making this like null sec absolutely not!" But here it is on sisi: null sec lite. They just can't seem to understand that eve can be a sandbox with many endgames involving pvp. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Halete
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
116
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:14:00 -
[460] - Quote
Confirming that I don't use FW as a 'stepping stone' to anything.
If I want to go to Null, I can happily fly there right now, period.
Dirty heretical mud-child, reporting in. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2318
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:46:00 -
[461] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:As I understand it; LP for offensive plexing is taken from the iHub if and only if it has any LP invested. Otherwise LP is given as normal, counting towards system occupancy/sovereignty. In short: Invested LP acts as both utterly useless carebear booster and as a buffer tank for the system. So, people who can actually use SiSi: 1. can you 'active tank' a system? Oh no, Iron Oxide's close to taking Sosan, and nobody's interested in fighting them, but I have a gazillion LP. Can I keep investing LP into the system to delay the capture? 2. Is the LP payout different? Will I be rewarding them with more LP than they'd otherwise get? 3. Can you tell how much LP is invested in an enemy system? Based on feedback comments so far, I guess not. If the answer to #1 is 'no', I'd like to know what prevents that. Maybe, you can't invest LP into a contested system - so I should've decided that I wanted Sosan to be able to last for a length of time under attack before they launched the attack. This would make it a severe grind to take a 'home system' vs. any random system, but it would still be a finite grind, people could not fly off, do some offensive plexing, and then rush back to drop Sisyphus's rock back on the attackers.
No, to my knowledge you cannot "active tank" a system, as the dev's have already pointed out that the system flip is determined by victory points, which have been reduced for each plex.
The rest of your questions will have to wait for the dev blog that should be out any day now. Thanks for your patience! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
401
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:51:00 -
[462] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Kuehnelt wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:As I understand it; LP for offensive plexing is taken from the iHub if and only if it has any LP invested. Otherwise LP is given as normal, counting towards system occupancy/sovereignty. In short: Invested LP acts as both utterly useless carebear booster and as a buffer tank for the system. So, people who can actually use SiSi: 1. can you 'active tank' a system? Oh no, Iron Oxide's close to taking Sosan, and nobody's interested in fighting them, but I have a gazillion LP. Can I keep investing LP into the system to delay the capture? 2. Is the LP payout different? Will I be rewarding them with more LP than they'd otherwise get? 3. Can you tell how much LP is invested in an enemy system? Based on feedback comments so far, I guess not. If the answer to #1 is 'no', I'd like to know what prevents that. Maybe, you can't invest LP into a contested system - so I should've decided that I wanted Sosan to be able to last for a length of time under attack before they launched the attack. This would make it a severe grind to take a 'home system' vs. any random system, but it would still be a finite grind, people could not fly off, do some offensive plexing, and then rush back to drop Sisyphus's rock back on the attackers. No, to my knowledge you cannot "active tank" a system, as the dev's have already pointed out that the system flip is determined by victory points, which have been reduced for each plex. The rest of your questions will have to wait for the dev blog that should be out any day now. Thanks for your patience!
Hans can you tell us if ccp is at least talking with you about this?
You don't need to say what you are talking about but just whether they are even discussing these issues with you since the changes went live on sisi.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2318
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:52:00 -
[463] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Ahazu Sagam wrote:New on SISI:
- warzone control is based on number of systems conquered and thier upgrade status - tier 1 bonus: crap LP offers, no LP gain bonus - tier 2 bonus: bad LP offers, 5% LP gain bonus - max is tier 5 - you see now how hard a system is contested in % Thanks for the update. What does "LP gain bonus" mean since you can't get LP with defensive plexing? Does it increase mission payout - meaning it might be profitable to upgrade mission systems?
As CCP Rubberband stated, the LP bonus is for all activities that pay out LP. Thus, missions, plexes, and player kills.
Warzone controls are not the same as the system upgrades, Warzone controls are affected by how well your faction is doing. The more you win systems and the more you upgrade them, the better warzone control you have. System upgrades are only dependent on the LP invested into the IHUB. You can see an explanation of all these concepts at the Fan Fest presentation. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2318
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:06:00 -
[464] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Kuehnelt wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:As I understand it; LP for offensive plexing is taken from the iHub if and only if it has any LP invested. Otherwise LP is given as normal, counting towards system occupancy/sovereignty. In short: Invested LP acts as both utterly useless carebear booster and as a buffer tank for the system. So, people who can actually use SiSi: 1. can you 'active tank' a system? Oh no, Iron Oxide's close to taking Sosan, and nobody's interested in fighting them, but I have a gazillion LP. Can I keep investing LP into the system to delay the capture? 2. Is the LP payout different? Will I be rewarding them with more LP than they'd otherwise get? 3. Can you tell how much LP is invested in an enemy system? Based on feedback comments so far, I guess not. If the answer to #1 is 'no', I'd like to know what prevents that. Maybe, you can't invest LP into a contested system - so I should've decided that I wanted Sosan to be able to last for a length of time under attack before they launched the attack. This would make it a severe grind to take a 'home system' vs. any random system, but it would still be a finite grind, people could not fly off, do some offensive plexing, and then rush back to drop Sisyphus's rock back on the attackers. No, to my knowledge you cannot "active tank" a system, as the dev's have already pointed out that the system flip is determined by victory points, which have been reduced for each plex. The rest of your questions will have to wait for the dev blog that should be out any day now. Thanks for your patience! Hans can you tell us if ccp is at least talking with you about this? You don't need to say what you are talking about but just whether they are even discussing these issues with you since the changes went live on sisi.
I am always in constant communication with CCP, every single day. What players need to keep in mind is that its literally impossible to design a "perfect" system without deciding on a set of changes, setting them loose, seeing how players learn to adjust and enjoy them, and than adjusting accordingly. In this thread there are a lot players trying to design their perfect system, but the reality is that NONE of us know exactly how much or how little fun this will be until we've tried it.
The sense of urgency here everyone feels just isn't necessary. Rest assured, there is plenty of time to suggest and implement all sorts of tweaks, fixes, and adjustments, but those have to be based on the real-world activity observed on Tranquility post-May 22, and can't be nailed down perfectly beforehand as there is no way to model how players will adapt until we give them a chance to do so. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Princess Nexxala
The Rock Hard Roosters Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:08:00 -
[465] - Quote
We started doing that months ago :)
Roddy Mcrizzle wrote: Truly this is going bring piracy back in force. As all the FW pilots are going to quite worrying about fw as a whole and just kill everything.
But yeah if LP rewards for plexing only come in an upgraded system (takes from the hub), that's kind of lame and probably will lead to a lot of people leaving. LP from plexing is what got lots of folks excited in the first place.
However, if you give us the ability to cyno jam an upgraded system...all will be forgiven CCP
Is sexy time? |
Andrea Griffin
276
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:23:00 -
[466] - Quote
For the most part, I enjoy the changes. LP for kills and plexing is wonderful, something we have asked to be added for a very long time.
I'm not too keen on station lockout, though - I believe that it will lead to a more risk-averse style of play and less pew pew. But, let's give it a try and see how it goes. Maybe it won't be all that bad. If it is, CCP can remove it.
I still stand by my previous statements about it though: If a station will deny access to a law abiding enemy of the state, why on earth would any station allow a criminal to dock? From a stance of consistency it just doesn't make any sense at all. It also doesn't make sense that an NPC corporation not involved in the war would deny docking access. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2319
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:29:00 -
[467] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote: I still stand by my previous statements about it though: If a station will deny access to a law abiding enemy of the state, why on earth would any station allow a criminal to dock? From a stance of consistency it just doesn't make any sense at all. It also doesn't make sense that an NPC corporation not involved in the war would deny docking access.
Because these aren't design decisions made from a role play or "just makes sense" standpoint. They are there to directly encourage consequence and add meaning to victory conditions, as well as to encourage more FW pilots to spend time in space fighting and less time sitting in stations spinning ships and asking where the fleet is.
Thank you though, for keeping a positive attitude and for being willing to try something before judging it. Players like you should have a lot of fun in the days ahead, I wish everyone else felt the same.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Salicaz
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:58:00 -
[468] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Thank you though, for keeping a positive attitude and for being willing to try something before judging it. Players like you should have a lot of fun in the days ahead, I wish everyone else felt the same.
CCP Guy> Hey guys, remember that broken feature we released years back called Faction Warfare? [Room erupts with howling laughter].
CCP Guy > [Wipes tear from eye after laughing so hard]. Lol! Iknorite! Well apparently some people still do it, no really they do!
CCP Prat from meeting > Why haven't they left for null sec, our beloved end game vision?
CCP Guy > I don't know, apparently they lived begrudgingly with the half arsed broken mess and....
CCP Prat from meeting > But why haven't they left for null sec, our beloved end game vision?
CCP Guy > shrugs*
CCP Prat from meeting > **** em, bring null sec to them then, lock them out of station. I can't believe they still do it lol! We even stopped adding news to the militia office window in Feb 2010. Let them have a helping prod into the direction that be null! [rapturous applaud from the rest of the meeting]
CCP Guy > They're bound to complain, what should we say?
CCP Prat from meeting > Nothing, just let that lovely Hans fellow from that gathering we invited, er, what are they called?
CCP Guy > CSM?
CCP Prat from meeting > Yeah them, get him to bang on about how good it really is for them.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:58:00 -
[469] - Quote
And what if they push ahead with their null-styled consequences/incentives while postponing the infinitely more important mechanics changes (NPCs primarily)?
And what exactly do they expect that will work against the inevitable snowball effect, winning sides will have LP coming out of their arses .. invest in systems (invulnerable due to blobbage) .. get even more LP etc. (and no, datacores mean squat)?
And how do they plan on getting around the 30-40% difference in starting systems between Amarr/Shakorite? Do they plan on remapping part of the area to make it more of a contest?
My fear is that the blog will just be transcripts of that presentation with notification that they are scheduling all the balance work for SoonGäó. If that happens, then even the abbadonification of the Punisher won't make up for the sheer hell of trying to outrun people who have been issued motorcycles after having ones own legs broken (difference in ease-of-plexing).
PS: Reason why many of us (or me at least) are so negative is because it smells a lot like the bits of null some of us joined FW to get away from. Lockouts, lol-cynojammers, increase in blobbage, EHP grinds and ISK for everything from eating to shitting (OK, that is not something I wanted to get away from ) and so forth.
And who said RP was boring! .. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:08:00 -
[470] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: encourage more FW pilots to spend time in space fighting and less time sitting in stations spinning ships and asking where the fleet is.
Locking people out of stations will merely move the systems people will do this. The current meta game requires FCs to be effective, and experience to be successful solo. This is not something you can just train to V, and it will not be resolved by any potential FW mechanic. People will always be risk averse, and when faced with impossible odds, people will just not fight. Locking someone out of station will not fundamentally change this in the least. All it will do is punish the side with less numbers, encourage blobs and do nothing to encourage a healthy FW.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Thank you though, for keeping a positive attitude and for being willing to try something before judging it. Players like you should have a lot of fun in the days ahead, I wish everyone else felt the same.
I've tested the current feature on sisi, and don't have to wait for some ccp dev who has never played FW to tell me how his **** ideas are going to improve things.
Sure, they have the right motivations to "get people to fight" but having a sudo sov mechanic where you have to battle NPC rats in plexes sounds like the worst idea ever. Not to mention that these NPCs are not all created equal.
You say "give it a chance", however the proposed changes offer approximately zero incentive to stay in milita. Hans perhaps you should try fighting outnumbered sometimes, we at least try fighting for something else than station denial as a CCP poster child for another failed expansion.
Hans you were supposed to save FW, not kill it.
edit- @Hans thanks for fighting for us |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
402
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:11:00 -
[471] - Quote
Hans clearly and repeatedly said he is against the no docking rule. He has represented that he clearly communicated this to ccp.
Now we will just see if ccp will ignore the players posting feedback, and the csm delegate they elected. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:13:00 -
[472] - Quote
Who is the minnie asking all those relevant question in the QA phase of the presentation (he is the one who gets the last Q as well!)? His grasp of reason and common sense is almost Amarrian in scope! |
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:35:00 -
[473] - Quote
@hans
@ccp FW dev dude
http://i.imgur.com/jNoGA.jpg |
Andrea Griffin
276
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 17:04:00 -
[474] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Because these aren't design decisions made from a role play or "just makes sense" standpoint. They are there to directly encourage consequence and add meaning to victory conditions, as well as to encourage more FW pilots to spend time in space fighting and less time sitting in stations spinning ships and asking where the fleet is. I understand that completely, and I agree to a point. I just like to have consistency with mechanics, because otherwise it just feels weird. Not a huge deal, just being a little picky. Fun gameplay is by far the most important, it would just be nice to have both.
One thing I think everyone can agree on - these changes are significant and the future of FW is going to be interesting. Eagerly awaiting the dev blog next week! CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 17:30:00 -
[475] - Quote
Andrea Griffin wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Because these aren't design decisions made from a role play or "just makes sense" standpoint. They are there to directly encourage consequence and add meaning to victory conditions, as well as to encourage more FW pilots to spend time in space fighting and less time sitting in stations spinning ships and asking where the fleet is. I understand that completely, and I agree to a point. I just like to have consistency with mechanics, because otherwise it just feels weird. Not a huge deal, just being a little picky. Fun gameplay is by far the most important, it would just be nice to have both. One thing I think everyone can agree on - these changes are significant and the future of FW is going to be interesting. Eagerly awaiting the dev blog next week!
From a pure gameplay perspective, I think it's suboptimal that neutrals (e.g. pirates) can roam the fw warspace completely without hindrance, but fw gangs are hindered in fw space.
I would go so far as to say if the station lockout thing must happen (and I don't think it should), it should lock out everyone but the faction that owns the system. |
Princess Nexxala
The Rock Hard Roosters Villore Accords
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:08:00 -
[476] - Quote
That would be quite fun if that were the case, but we both know CCP would never do that.
chatgris wrote: I would go so far as to say if the station lockout thing must happen (and I don't think it should), it should lock out everyone but the faction that owns the system.
Is sexy time? |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:43:00 -
[477] - Quote
Princess Nexxala wrote:That would be quite fun if that were the case, but we both know CCP would never do that. chatgris wrote: I would go so far as to say if the station lockout thing must happen (and I don't think it should), it should lock out everyone but the faction that owns the system.
That's what's so damn frustrating about this.
CCP is giving us the disadvantages of nullsec (station lockouts) without any of the advantages: no denying safe harbour to our threats (the biggest threat to the gallente militia are neutrals/pirates who can still dock everywhere with ease, NOT the caldari miltiia), and no defence against random supercap blobs (cynojammers).
Not to mention plexing mechanics that, apart from defending a few key agent systems, has NO reward for defending a plex. We're back at "if I chase an opponent out of a plex my reward is to sit there bored for up to double the normal timer length with no reward".
I am waiting eagerly for that dev blog for some more concrete details but damn things are looking bleak right now. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:44:00 -
[478] - Quote
And most importantly none of the money. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
402
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:49:00 -
[479] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Andrea Griffin wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Because these aren't design decisions made from a role play or "just makes sense" standpoint. They are there to directly encourage consequence and add meaning to victory conditions, as well as to encourage more FW pilots to spend time in space fighting and less time sitting in stations spinning ships and asking where the fleet is. I understand that completely, and I agree to a point. I just like to have consistency with mechanics, because otherwise it just feels weird. Not a huge deal, just being a little picky. Fun gameplay is by far the most important, it would just be nice to have both. One thing I think everyone can agree on - these changes are significant and the future of FW is going to be interesting. Eagerly awaiting the dev blog next week! From a pure gameplay perspective, I think it's suboptimal that neutrals (e.g. pirates) can roam the fw warspace completely without hindrance, but fw gangs are hindered in fw space. I would go so far as to say if the station lockout thing must happen (and I don't think it should), ....
Of course, nothing requires the lock out to happen. Well unless you want faction war to be a stepping stone to null sec. Then I guess it "must" happen.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
402
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:59:00 -
[480] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Princess Nexxala wrote:That would be quite fun if that were the case, but we both know CCP would never do that. chatgris wrote: I would go so far as to say if the station lockout thing must happen (and I don't think it should), it should lock out everyone but the faction that owns the system.
That's what's so damn frustrating about this. CCP is giving us the disadvantages of nullsec (station lockouts) without any of the advantages: no denying safe harbour to our threats (the biggest threat to the gallente militia are neutrals/pirates who can still dock everywhere with ease, NOT the caldari miltiia), and no defence against random supercap blobs (cynojammers). Not to mention plexing mechanics that, apart from defending a few key agent systems, has NO reward for defending a plex. We're back at "if I chase an opponent out of a plex my reward is to sit there bored for up to double the normal timer length with no reward". I am waiting eagerly for that dev blog for some more concrete details but damn things are looking bleak right now.
According to ccp faction war is a "stepping stone" to null sec. So they want us to do the same sort of things as null sec just with fewer rewards.
Its sort of like level 3 missions are a stepping stone to level 4 missions. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |