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) |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:30:00 -
[211] - Quote
lol all the Gallente and Minmatar think it's a bad idea to reset Sov after Inferno for FW. Jeeze, wonder why that is. http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2315
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:31:00 -
[212] - Quote
BTW everyone, I'm going to be writing a blog post this weekend to go over all these things and put them into some context. I'll talk a bit more about the Sov reset issue, pros / cons, and talk about issues of fairness and elasticity in the new war. Stay tuned! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:35:00 -
[213] - Quote
That'd be good, Hans, but keep listening here as well, please. I can't emphasise enough how bad an idea a reset is in my opinion.
And Shalee - I do see what you're getting at, honestly I do. But the playing field has been level in the lead up to this patch - the prospect of getting all of our stuff locked into a system isn't one any of us like, and we've all been spending the time since it was announced dealing with it as best we can. Resetting now would be like refunding everyone who bought a Dramiel right before they got nerfed because it wouldn't be fair - that's not Eve. When a ship gets nerfed, people who bought them don't get refunded, and people who speculated right get rich. That's how it is. This is the same thing. |
Loryanna
The Flowing Penguins Iron Oxide.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:39:00 -
[214] - Quote
Resetting the systems goes against everything that EvE stands for. EvE is about creating a continous history that stands up to scrutinisation regardless of how the various iterations of the rules have effected it. An etch-a-sketch end-of-the-world move for 'fairness' would destroy the history we have worked so hard to forge. As well as this, it would be deeply unfair on the Minmatar Alliances that have worked very hard to base themselves within what was once enemy territory. Our ships, our PI, our POSs, our entire infrastructure is built around our current location. Forcing us to move 2.5weeks before patch day is like punishing us for winning the game.
Resetting the system is a truly awful idea and I would be appaulled if was even considered let alone implemented. |
Almity
Imperial Outlaws
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:41:00 -
[215] - Quote
If you want to look at these changes from LP/isk why would I go do a plex in a highly active area when I could run up metro and cap a few before anyone even knew what I was doing? Get my LP risk free and make Sasa go decontest it after I go to bed. Same thing the next day and over and over.
From a combat point of view I see no good at all from these changes. If you expect to see more small fights you are wrong. Why would someone who is out trying to make LP bother fighting? They will see you come into the plex and just warp out and go two systems over. Add in no docking and you will have a blob camping gates. For those of us who want a fight it will just be longer tines to reship and repair. How does this help the small scale PVP?
The sweeping Minmatar victory is in your grasps Hans! A few more tweeks and it will be yours.... |
Kuan Yida
Huang Yinglong White-Lotus
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:50:00 -
[216] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Also guys think about it. Everyone left FW, ti's dead. it's current members *me included i only left yesterday to get into a new corp after finals week*
Mom, you left without even saying goodbye? BTW, I'm still there and I'm not dead yet.
|
Desra Mascani
Eleutherian Guard Villore Accords
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:56:00 -
[217] - Quote
Uh. That would be stupid. Right now, people are bleeding ships and their RL time in preparation for the changes, fighting over systems like crazy to secure positions and somebody would like to reset and make all that effort in vain? WTF is wrong with you people? |
Shepard Book
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:58:00 -
[218] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:BTW everyone, I'm going to be writing a blog post this weekend to go over all these things and put them into some context. I'll talk a bit more about the Sov reset issue, pros / cons, and talk about issues of fairness and elasticity in the new war. Stay tuned!
Fairness in war? Really? |
Annah Kitheran
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 22:03:00 -
[219] - Quote
Honestly, I am dissapointed to hear this suggested in any serious way. We watched the same fanfest stream as everyone else and I'll admit we worried, I think everyone in FW did a little bit. But we did what we have always done and decided that rather than move all our stuff to hi-sec in preparation we were going to work our collective butts to hold on to the system where we have lived for over a year. We made a plan, we enacted said plan. As a result of our militia's superior internal communication and co-operation and our forward planning we are "winning".
To echo Shalee somewhat ironically, "lol all the amarr who couldn't be bothered to plan or fight think it'd be great if CCP made the consequences of their inaction go away." I understand you feel hard done by, but in the circumstances you had all the same information we had, we reacted differently; that is EVE. |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 22:13:00 -
[220] - Quote
Schalac wrote:Quote:2. There are 5 levels of discounts for a number of different things - if you own the system and have upgraded it - Medical clone discounts (from 10% in increments of 10 up to 50% discount) - Number of assembly lines increases by 1 for every level - All broker fees discounted (from 10% in increments of 10 up to 50%) - NOTE: You only get these discounts in the FW system - ADDENDUM: These discounts apply to neutrals not in FW
The bolded part doesn't make sense. So do you or don't you? I think it would be a dumb idea to give neutrals a piece of what other people fought for.
I agree, whats the reasoning behind giving neutrals access to discounts? They shouldn't be affected by the discounts WE pay for. That and all the pirate FW Corps out there would atleast deter them from even entering FW space.
As long as they can dock, they can still be used as alts for direct opposing faction trade hub runs, which is aboutthe only reason I can think of. |
|
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 22:26:00 -
[221] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I also totally agree that with all of the changes on the table for this expansion, the most fair thing to do would be to reset Sov across the board. I've already been talking to CCP about this particular issue.
I respectfully disagree here. Reset + Lockout = well over half the active Gallente and Minmatar militias screwed. If the opposing forces want those systems, they have a little more time to take them back.
Have to agree with most others here Hans. We have all done ALOT of work to secure systems for our Miltias. Reseting is just a CRAZY idea.
Thanks for all your other your support regarding FW changes, they will be a godsend, but yeah just cant agree with your statement.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
191
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 22:26:00 -
[222] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:lol all the Gallente and Minmatar think it's a bad idea to reset Sov after Inferno for FW. Jeeze, wonder why that is. I told you why. What's the big deal with not reseting? |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 22:31:00 -
[223] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:lol all the Gallente and Minmatar think it's a bad idea to reset Sov after Inferno for FW. Jeeze, wonder why that is.
If you want space... Start working together and fighting us! |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
232
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 23:04:00 -
[224] - Quote
If CCP really decides to go through with this obnoxious full station lock-out, then I really hope they don't decide to reset. Or if they do reset, give a grace period where the systems are reset but the stations don't lock-out yet, for like a week so people who live deep in Amarr-owned systems have a chance to secure their home system so they don't have to move hundreds of ships/assets all across the warzone. Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 23:19:00 -
[225] - Quote
Reset+lock out would potentially cripple GalMil for days. SOTF, SLAPD and Villore Accords are all primarily based in systems that would be flipped back. |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 23:52:00 -
[226] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:lol all the Gallente and Minmatar think it's a bad idea to reset Sov after Inferno for FW. Jeeze, wonder why that is.
You cannot win the battle fought on the field until you win the battle that is fought in your mind.
Your proposal of CCP's resetting sovereignty will not fix that which ails your troubled mind, Amarrian soldier
:) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
245
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:21:00 -
[227] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:Reset+lock out would potentially cripple GalMil for days. SOTF, SLAPD and Villore Accords are all primarily based in systems that would be flipped back.
SLAPD isn't based in a system that would be "flipped back" since it's been under caldari occupancy for awhile now.
As for the rest of the issue. I think a reset would be pretty gay. Some caldari corps base in gallente systems and some gallente base in caldari systems (some for years now). If this reset is really happening, CCP needs to make a decision now and announce it, and not deal with "maybes". Give FW corps time to move their **** and plan accordingly well in advance.
|
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:27:00 -
[228] - Quote
First of all, I seriously doubt that CCP will reset anything. For them to come in and directly affect player-driven game play in that way would be completely against the very idea of a sandbox.
There have been plenty of controversial and big changes/expansions in the past, with no resets. Part of the sandbox includes planning for and reacting to some of these things.
www.gamerchick.net Follow me on Twitter! @gamerchick42 |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
72
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:36:00 -
[229] - Quote
I'm fine with it not being reset if it takes the same amount of time as it does now to flip a system. But as I understand it, they are DRASTICALLY changing the time it takes to flip a system.
http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Oppon's Pull
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:39:00 -
[230] - Quote
I'm more concerned with the mad rush that the numerically superior / broader tz militias will be able to pull off - flip 7-8 important systems in the week leading up to the Inferno release with a 6 hour flip then laugh as their outnumbered opponents have to spend 40 hours to get them back. Of course this is assuming the global reset does not take place |
|
Kuehnelt
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:39:00 -
[231] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Missed the point did we? My point is that you won't have to go 10 jumps just to find someone else to pew because they'll be close by. ... All I see is a lot of whining because people want this to be fight club
Quote:LP for plexing seems to only be applying to offensive plexing. So if you actually want people to shoot at, you need some reason for people to defensively plex. If you get locked out of station and can't access your stuff, that's a pretty powerful incentive to stop the enemy from running plexes.
No, outside of maybe three systems, it's not an incentive because you don't have anything in that system that you'll be locked out from because you'll have already moved everything. You'll be left with all the same old incentives to defensive plex. If it helps you, don't think of the feature as "station lock-out"; think of it as "everybody mostly stops using the stations for no apparent reason".
Quote:First of all, alarm clock ops are a result of RF timers
Which, try to keep up, pal, are things you get more of when there are more enemy POSes than there would otherwise be in a region. You spent a whole paragraph above saying "I can't read FW threads"; this is something I've talked about in this thread.
Quote:What you all are bitching about is that you can't do that with every single system in the FW area, which was unrealistic in the first place.
Like my ship completely disappearing from space after I log out, and like my still being able to jump into Minmatar/Gallente highsec to repair my ship, like highsec itself, like bubbles and bombs magically not working anywhere in lowsec, like my own orbit impairing my ability to shoot a stationary target. It's a game. Because it's a game, you need more than 'realism' as a justification for a change -- especially when you get that same level of 'realism' just as easily with some clever RP. Like, maybe station NPCs are so justifiably terrified of capsuleers that ignoring our them fight is a convenient pact made out of band with the war by the respective empires who still want their stations in these areas to be operational. There are obvious real-world parallels.
Meanwhile, because this is still a game, a new feature can positively or negatively affect the game. To learn more about that, stop writing paragraphs that mainly communicate your inability to follow FW threads, and go try to read them. |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:44:00 -
[232] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:
I will say that CCP needs to make it so there are diminishing returns for the winning side and increased incentives for the losing side, so that it isn't completely hopeless if one side really does dominate.
Ultimately, the benefits you gain from winning are the incentives. Aren't they? I mean, unless you think there should be incentives to lose...which is kind of silly, if you think about it.
So the 'returns' = the 'incentives', and the act of 'diminishing' these returns ultimately diminishes the incentives as well.
Therefore, aren't you kind of contradicting yourself?
www.gamerchick.net Follow me on Twitter! @gamerchick42 |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:45:00 -
[233] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:I'm fine with it not being reset if it takes the same amount of time as it does now to flip a system. But as I understand it, they are DRASTICALLY changing the time it takes to flip a system.
They changed taking FW systems before from really long to really short, and did not reset. Was this controversial back then? www.gamerchick.net Follow me on Twitter! @gamerchick42 |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:53:00 -
[234] - Quote
We call that formation of a frontline, rather than fighting a guerilla war in systems you already own and the enemy would have no actual hope of flipping. We're making it a little more like warfare, and less like fight club, which I have no problem with. People will have to move their stuff as they lose systems, so they'll actually be worried about different systems as they're forced to move their stuff or move it ever further towards the frontline.
Would those be the poses that almost no one uses right now? Or are you just guessing that POS usage will just magically start happening in FW, even though the population has a proven reticence to do any kind of POS op. In fact, they justifiably hate it. Now you're just creating scenarios and then treating them like they're already real so you can support your argument, since it doesn't have any real evidence to support it.
Here's some real facts that actually exist in the present: FW population is dwindling, players want occupancy to mean something, right now it doesn't mean anything. Station lock outs will make people actually want to participate, unless they want to lose access to their **** or don't want to be in FW anymore, or want to spend hours moving stuff with neutral alts or paying someone else to do it. It's a lot of hassle, and well worth the time put in to actually defensively plex.
Also, when I said it was unrealistic, what I mean was that it's unrealistic to be able to expect to exert some control over every system in the warzone, whether or not you actually care about it. Obviously this is a game about internet spaceships, actual realism doesn't mean ****. However you have to temper your expectations about how much you can impose your will on the enemy without actually doing anything of consequence. If you're not willing to plex for a system, it's unrealistic to expect to be able to reap the benefits from it. |
Kuehnelt
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:54:00 -
[235] - Quote
Oppon's Pull wrote:I'm more concerned with the mad rush that the numerically superior / broader tz militias will be able to pull off - flip 7-8 important systems in the week leading up to the Inferno release with a 6 hour flip then laugh as their outnumbered opponents have to spend 40 hours to get them back.
Yep, this is the specific issue that a reset is just an easy-to-communicate solution for. Flip five systems at 10:00, and then at 12:00 the enemy can have fun doing 5x the requisite plexes to turn things around.
The best solution is an early and unannounced implementation of that specific change. All of the defenses of the last-minute ****-you that people will come up with, will be even more applicable to an early implementation. |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:55:00 -
[236] - Quote
Susan Black wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote:
I will say that CCP needs to make it so there are diminishing returns for the winning side and increased incentives for the losing side, so that it isn't completely hopeless if one side really does dominate.
Ultimately, the benefits you gain from winning are the incentives. Aren't they? I mean, unless you think there should be incentives to lose...which is kind of silly, if you think about it. So the 'returns' = the 'incentives', and the act of 'diminishing' these returns ultimately diminishes the incentives as well. Therefore, aren't you kind of contradicting yourself?
All I'm talking about is avoiding a positive feedback loop where one side can never recover from losing all their systems. Maybe that will happen organically through increased cost of faction items, but I feel that's more of a numbers issue than something directly tied to the battlefield, and all that corresponds to is the number of people actually selling items, rather than coordinating and working together to fight back. |
Asthariye
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:09:00 -
[237] - Quote
As far as our testing on Sisi has shown so far, there seems to be no LP for defensive plexing, only for offensive. I'm not sure that's enough incentive for the losing side, and it has some issues for the defending side in that it might encourage people to go solo plex in back end of nowhere rather than heavily fought over systems, but it ought to help some for the 'losing' side. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Villore Accords
101
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 02:47:00 -
[238] - Quote
Im not going to go into any of my reasoning here, since much of it is subconscious.
Flipping a system should prevent the enemy from accessing any friendly militia agent there. But not docking rights.
Perhaps, to justify the non militia agent systems being fought over, the overall number of systems controlled should effect the lp value or rewards from agents or cost from lp store.
Locking people out of stations will obviously slow down small scale pvp, if not kill it as people are faced with multiple jumps to reship. They bring a dessy for a minor plex which takes them 5-6 minutes, but the plex is completed by the enemy before everyone can get back, then they have to fly back to friendly zones to reship into a cruiser or bc for the next plex. Its just ******** on every level to make people do that, and simply introduces an unnecessary and artificial barrier to pvp and gf's. THIS IS NOT DULLSEC SOV-WARS.
Denying access to low sec agents is enough, if caldari take intaki, then that denies me a lucrative agent etc. If they take all of low sec then i have to use poor rewarding high sec agents. Being locked out of stations where i might have 10b+ assets is too much of a nuisance. All that does is make it compulsory for a few unlucky people with jump freighter alts to take days at a time to haul **** from one place to another. That is NOT the kind of game play that should be being encouraged.
I know that FW is the testbed for dullsec changes in the pipeline, but tbh i say **** dullsec. Dullsec empires rise and fall, unless you WANT militias to actually fall then dont set them up for it. Militia warfare should be relatively easily accessible for all without all the bs sov nonsense that dullsec has. Occupancy should have a direct effect on the militias but should not cripple them. |
Hrett
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:55:00 -
[239] - Quote
Like everyone else, I am just spitballing here, but after reading most of the thread, these are my thoughts (which are subject to change on whim or sobriety):
1. I still think sov capping should only lockout station services and agents, but not docking rights. Again, we militia folk cannot control who our 'allies' are, and there are too many chances for griefing by alt-corps. That is the huge difference between us and 0.0, and the difference in docking rights is justified.
2. LP for plexing: I don't think the current SiSi setup is right. It just encourages mostly unskilled alts in unfit Atrons or Condors to go to backwater systems and run buttons. It doesn't encourage actual furtherance of the war effort. FW would be flooded with even more useless plexing alts. Instead, I think both attackers AND defenders should get LP, but ONLY when the system is contested. That will create real conflict systems and 'fronts' where battles will take place. It should be possible, as this is similar to how faction rep is awarded to defenders. People can still earn LP from missions and killing.
3. On the system upgrades, I think PI should benefit in some way for POCO owners and/or PI operators. And as mentioned numerous times before, cyno jammers should be allowed. If they aren't, any sovereignty claims are purely illusory and subject to the whim of 0.0 supercap power blocks. (and again, spitballing here, but how about jump bridges? May be a bad idea...)
4. As fond as I am of the idea of a reset - I don't think it should happen. This would penalize everyone, but especially smaller corps and individuals who have ships spread everywhere. And I think X Gall suggestion about dialing the time to cap back from 5x to 3 or 4x current might be needed.
Regardless, I am glad for the tweaks, and glad that Hans and CCP are on the issue. Even if you dont agree with everything (and I don't) at least be happy they are trying.
Just my opinion. |
SigmaPi
Valkyr Industries Late Night Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 03:57:00 -
[240] - Quote
Shalee Lianne wrote:lol all the Gallente and Minmatar think it's a bad idea to reset Sov after Inferno for FW. Jeeze, wonder why that is.
Because we've put in effort and the others havent? |
|
|
|
|
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 |