Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1937
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Faction Warfare - What are the plans for post-Inferno work here?
I'm sure Hans will be along to post here shortly... CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2369
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1937
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Reserved.
Thanks for your detailed feedback, we will be sure to pass on your desire to completely delete Faction Warfare from the game at the summit... CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Drackarn
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 22:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Balancing will be a major step here. We'll only know what needs fixing after Inferno launches so keep a close eye!
Biggest topic - Cyno jammers! FW will never have fleets of super caps as that's not what FW is about. Let us jam a few select system so we can fight the likes of PL and NC. without 40 supers being dropped on us which = game over! http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.com/ |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1937
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 22:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Drackarn wrote:Balancing will be a major step here. We'll only know what needs fixing after Inferno launches so keep a close eye!
Biggest topic - Cyno jammers! FW will never have fleets of super caps as that's not what FW is about. Let us jam a few select system so we can fight the likes of PL and NC. without 40 supers being dropped on us which = game over!
I think you are not fully thinking out the consequences. If you guys can cyno jam, I would worry that people like Goons and PL will put alts in FW and "ruin" it for the rest of you. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
336
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 22:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pirate Factions.
What happens in Faction War should affect all those that live in Empire space, regardless of whether they signed up for FW or not. In you live in Sov Null (or to a lesser extent WH) space you must deal with player Alliance politics, if you live in Empire or NPC Null you should have to deal with NPC politics. Everyone in Empire should be invested in what happens even if they don't actually get involved in the fighting themselves. |
S810 Jr
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 23:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Two step wrote:Drackarn wrote:Balancing will be a major step here. We'll only know what needs fixing after Inferno launches so keep a close eye!
Biggest topic - Cyno jammers! FW will never have fleets of super caps as that's not what FW is about. Let us jam a few select system so we can fight the likes of PL and NC. without 40 supers being dropped on us which = game over! I think you are not fully thinking out the consequences. If you guys can cyno jam, I would worry that people like Goons and PL will put alts in FW and "ruin" it for the rest of you.
O'h dear they will "ruin" it for the rest of us by plexing all day and all night, every week, to get LP to put in every system ihub in the war zone, so they can anchor and online a cyno jammer at one of their alt POSs in every system. What ever will we do??!!?! O'h I have an idea, carry on as normal without getting hot dropped by a bored 0.0 alliance that is too scared to fight a war with anyone that may have 20+ super carriers of their own to drop on them. O'h and it'll mean that we have lowest LP store costs for our items with them keeping all the systems at full Sov soooo we (the none alts who are in FW) will just have to settle for more PvP over PvE.... Sorry I really can't see a downside to them bringing alts to FW just to "ruin" it for us.
Have you even looked at the FW ihub settings? Only 75K LP buffer (150K LP in real terms) before the Level 5 sov upgrade gets switched off. That can be done in 20 mins with the right plex pooling. I'm still awaiting a response in the FW thread about if that will be raised but it's full of emo whining about datacores.
But at the end of the day, please don't "worry" about us because FW has nothing to do with you as you live in WH space. |
Jared Reidel
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 07:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Cyno-jammers definitely FTW |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Plexing, system upgrades, and consequences of defeat/rewards of victory all need to be looked at.
Additionally, the LP stores for each militia should be revamped to make them more unique compared to both each other and compared to non-militia LP stores.
Make more of the FW victory/defeat related consequences impact high-sec rather than the people fighting the war in low-sec. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
115
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 16:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cyno Jamming (not really FW content): Never going to happen. Null has too much of a vested interest in being able to get their fat asses from A to B with as little hassle as possible, since null pays the bills ... Instead hamstring supers when operating outside null (ie. Empire). Previously suggested removing their immunity when away from null, disallowing bridges into Empire and some harsh'ish standing hit when dropping the WMD in a sovereign Empires backyard .. allows full movement but with cost/risk attached.
As for everything else .. not going to bother, been screaming at the wall for going on four years to no avail and with their "fixes" resembling none of the excellent suggestion the FW community has presented in that time but rather some half-assed adaptation of the even more broken null ..
I quite simply stopped believing that anything I or anyone else in FW can say will make a lick of difference. |
|
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 21:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yes, FW for pirate factions! ...and perhaps some others too. Intaki Syndicate comes to mind. I mean, Intaki is a FW system... Join in game channel/mailing list: New Eden Racing Sub-warp racing event thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107164 |
Maureen 'Molls' Maguire
The Paratwa Ka
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 00:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Quote:Standing requirements Required faction standings to join Factional Warfare have been lowered from 0.5 to 0.0. Please note that players having negative standings will still be kicked out of their respective faction as usual.
Can I say... we are UP IN ARMS over this? It feels like a slap in the face.
As full as all the factions are with spais, at least they put SOME effort into it. Now spais will be even more accessible. I read militia chat rarely enough as it is. I post in it even less. After this change, I'm afraid it would take an idiot to post pertinent info there. It will be degraded to pornographic gifs and 4chan links, just like the NPC corp chats.
Other than that I'm pretty stoked over the Inferno changes. Except turning the Merlin into a turret boat. That... is just wrong... And nerfing the Rifter's cap recharge. =P |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 21:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
Some ideas for Improved Upgrades. The current upgrades are useless and irrelevant.
Improved PI upgrades would be nice. Perhaps more output per level. Reduced cost in reprocessing and refining. Reduced cost in repair More payout per rat per level More grav site spawns
Bonuses to science and research slots would be a huge buff to lowsec inhabitants however you need to add more science slots then. But if you do, the problem then becomes that FW pilots don't want to pour in LP into a station that others end up using before they will. So there has to be a mechanism for allowing FW pilots (and preferably the primary donaters of LP) to have access to the slots first.
Move station deny docking from being automatic when a system is captured to something that only happens when the enemy upgrade a system to level X. Here is something proposed by someone else;
Quote:Wouldnt it be more useful to upgrade systems like this:
Level 1: 25% Reduction in Marketorders, Contracts, Jumpclones, Repaircosts etc. Level 2: Enemy cant use Agents in Station Level 3: Enemy cant use Services in Station Level 4: Enemy cant dock in Stations Level 5: Sov holder can Use Cynojammers on their POS
So that means people have a chance to get in their ships by plexing a system down a bit and arent fully locked out when sov changes. I think this will encourage pvp more then people having locked out permanently and they wont bother coming to that system
I don't like lockouts because it would be unfair for say the Gallente militia to roam into enemy space and be hunted by pirates/neutrals who can dock but we can't.
We need LP for defensive plexing. Say half of offensive plexing. Otherwise, it becomes exhausting to spin a button. I'd rather just let the other guy plex the system to vulnerable because I'm calling their bluff that they can't bring a buster bunking fleet. And if they bust the bunker, we'll just plex it back and it becomes Farmville. C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 21:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
Two step wrote:Drackarn wrote:Balancing will be a major step here. We'll only know what needs fixing after Inferno launches so keep a close eye!
Biggest topic - Cyno jammers! FW will never have fleets of super caps as that's not what FW is about. Let us jam a few select system so we can fight the likes of PL and NC. without 40 supers being dropped on us which = game over! I think you are not fully thinking out the consequences. If you guys can cyno jam, I would worry that people like Goons and PL will put alts in FW and "ruin" it for the rest of you.
I agree. So perhaps only player corps should have access to cyno jammers. This limits the meta gaming to some degree. No one in an NPC corp should be allowed to cynojam.
Edit: Though, now that you don't need. 5 standings to join militia, I guess anyone can create a corp and exploit this. Not sure what to do?
C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Andrea Griffin
285
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:02:00 -
[15] - Quote
I want the NPC pirate factions to be involved in faction warfare. CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
14
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 08:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
One more thing: get rid of FW missions. |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
172
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 12:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Below are some questions/comments about FW for discussion
1) Why did CPP choose to release FW changes in Inferno without a) balancing NPCs in the Escalation patch and b) changing the amount of VP (dropped the plex VP payout to 20% of pre-Inferno levels) in the Escalation patch so that the Amarr especially weren't fighting with 1 hand behind their back. When the minmitar can speed tank majors and we can't and they can flip a system in the USTZ after undoing any effort that the AU/EU have done, its no wonder we hold next to no systems. This question to me needs looking into as it is similar to the question of how UI was released before it was ready...
2) Cyno jammers. I pointed out at fan fest that the militia is a COALITION, not an ALLIANCE. As such, how can one corp/alliance have control over a cyno jammer? And if anyone can control it, see next point re the spies. As an example, you don't see members of the CFC being able to shut down other member's cynos...
3) Spies. We can't kick members from the NPC militias, so unlike a null sec alliance, we have to put up with them. Dropping the faction standings means they can just join without putting any effort in. Additionally, if the standings are 0.0 and not 0.5 to join, it makes it possible for people to jump back and forth between militias who are there to farm, not to actually fight.
4) Is CPP going to review the decision to only pay out LP if you are within range of the timer? Whilst I have seen people rushing to get onto a timer someone else has run down to get LP, this also means you don't paid if you fight on the warp in to defend the plex if you get in first.
5) NPC balance and fixing the plexing bugs HAS to be the next main focus for FW before newer features are added.
6) Since we (Amarr) can't really pull FW missions now, I was wondering if FW missions spawn in enemy held systems or continue to work like they did before Inferno. It doesn't make sense if the minnie missions don't spawn in the amarr held systems.
Most importantly, the FW community needs to know more about what CCP is planning so we can provide feedback. Changes came out in Inferno we were not aware of such as not receiving LP unless we were within the range of plex timer. Whilst this was noted as a derp with the patch notes, it would be good to have this sort of thing advertised in advance. Will the new FW be any good??? |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
264
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 23:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
NPC Rebalancing needs to be on the agenda ASAP.
I'm in the Gallente militia and people can run the minor through major plexes in self repping incursus. But yet a BC like a drake cannot handle a major. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm fine with making FW accessible for new players but if you want to reap the rewards of a major, then you need to fly a BC and be prepared to fight for it. We could probably do a major with several BCs but then the rewards aren't great because it's split between several people. At that point, you're better off sticking to the minors and mediums and solo them.
I thought the SB mission runners pre Inferno was silly but this takes PVE farming to a new level. We have newbs who can farm the backwater systems and simply run if a combat ship enters the plex. And no one wants to sit there and spin the button because there are no rewards for defensive plexing.
The constant defensive plexing will simply wear down alot of pilots to the point of leaving FW alltogether.
NPC rebalancing needs to be the priority before anything else. C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
242
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 01:11:00 -
[19] - Quote
Two step wrote:I think you are not fully thinking out the consequences. If you guys can cyno jam, I would worry that people like Goons and PL will put alts in FW and "ruin" it for the rest of you. The put in a requirement that only player owned corps can put up cynojammers. If Goons/PL want to put up alt corps, then fine. Those corps can be war dec'd and their cynojammers can be removed.
Prioirity List: FW Plexes (high priority, in order): 1. Fix plex bug where plex does not respawn if both sides are near the timer at the same time. 2. Fix plexing mechanics such that afk warp core-stabbed shi** f** frigs cannot speed tank offensive plexes. (Put in a requirement that all rats must be killed is one solution). 3. Balance NPCs in plexes. Don't listen to the hordes of players like me with limited perspective. CCP Yttr should try them out for himself and figure out what makes sense for balancing.
FW Missions (low priority, in order): I'm one of the guys who prefers FW missions over plexes because they give me an excuse to keep moving throughout the war theater. It is also fun to grief mission runners when I get the chance. 1. Put a "poison pill" in missions so they can be griefed. 2. Have completion/failure of a mission count add VP towards occupancy.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
441
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Post kamela and Kourm frenzy:
1) I am having very little luck getting pvp running plexes. When I go in an amarr plex the other side just warps off. When I run the plex myself, even in a busy wt systems no one comes in. It just seems that if i want to fight for occupancy I greatly decrease my chances to get pvp fights.
2) Raa just fell without a fight. Thanks to station lockouts amarr bases were too far removed to put up a fight. It would be nice to know if ccp had any solid criteria that would need to be met for them to eliminate this lock out rule. Generally rules that prevent the losing side from putting up a fight should be frowned on, I would think.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Some big issues:
Intentional abuse of a bug (hans can give more insight as to what that bug is we've spoken about it already) that causes outposts to never respawn. Also this bug happens unintentionally and i'm sure all militias would like this bug fixed.
Expanding minmatar/amarr FW lowsec: They need a couple extra constellations IMO. The FW lowsec of that area is "too small" compared to vast regions like placid and blackrise.
NPC balance: Ewar across all militias NPCs should be nerfed. Tracking should be improved for gallente/amarr rats to have better damage application against small targets.
System upgrade rewards: Should have more meaning than clone costs and market orders/station slots (most corps don't live in systems with these slots or don't use them anyway). Cynojammers were suggested however I feel if they are implemented this would really mess with 0.0/lowsec logistics as a whole. Neutrals still live in lowsec and I feel this does not cater well to pirates or neutral corps/alliances not directly involved in FW that do live in lowsec. It feels too restrictive and too close to null mechanics. System upgrades should be rewards that every member of a militia feels are worth working towards whether you are an individual, small corp, or large heavy hitting corp.
Ship balancing: The osprey navy issue, exequror navy issue, aurogar navy issue, and scythe fleet issue need slight buffing. In addition to teiricide of cruisers since plex fighting is really important now.
LP rewards for defensive plexing: I am on the fence on this. People who defend their systems (and care about their militia holding systems) are receiving no LP for their efforts while offensive plexers are rewarded for attacking randomly. I also feel that going into enemy space should be encouraged and I think the current system does this really well by only giving LP for offensive plexing. I believe that if you give the same amount of LP for defensive plexing you will see lots of turtleing instead of having people actually out and about in space fighting, which is probably the worst change CCP can do now if they want people to keep fighting each other. If LP for defensive plexing happens, it needs to be somewhere around 1/4 or 1/5 (or lower) of the LP of what you get for a similar sized plex offensively would give. The reason for such lower rewards is because of system infrastructure. Attacking system infrastructure should feel rewarding, however, it would be a moot point if the defenders could uncontest their system and regain ALL LP lost by doing so. All systems would be upgraded to 5 and FW would stagnate.
System upgrades: ninja plexing to destroy infrastructure. System upgrades do go down but really to keep your system upgraded you don't really defend it against ninja plexers, its far easier to go offensive plex to replace the LP lost than to close the plex that the "ninja" opened to keep your system upgrades. You don't get LP ( or a fight ) for closing a plex that a ninja opened and ran away from at the first sign of trouble. Refer to the above paragraph and I think if CCP implemented small (1/4 or less of offensive plex) LP rewards for defensive plexing it wouldn't be that bad for those that do the dirty defensive plexing against "ninjas". Attacking to destroy infrastructure would still feel rewarding, and blueballing your enemy at the first sign of trouble wouldn't be a valid tactic (system upgrades are easily destroyed and can be destroyed while you sleep). |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
260
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
I also like to add despite some minor tweaking/bug fixes this is probably the BEST expansion yet. There is LOTS of fighting and explosions'n'stuff. I am very pleased with inferno so far. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
242
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Super Chair wrote:I also like to add despite some minor tweaking/bug fixes this is probably the BEST expansion yet. There is LOTS of fighting and explosions'n'stuff. I am very pleased with inferno so far. +1. Well done CCP. Keep it going!
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
452
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 19:50:00 -
[24] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I'll start gathering a list of the talking points the players would like addressed in the summit and periodically sticky it right here in this space! Thanks for your input everyone....
Did the summit already happen?
What were the talking points you hit?
Thanks Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
251
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 13:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: Prioirity List: FW Plexes (high priority, in order): 2. Fix plexing mechanics such that afk warp core-stabbed shi** f** frigs cannot speed tank offensive plexes. (Put in a requirement that all rats must be killed is one solution). Edit:Apparently afk repping Incursus' are solo'ing Caldari plexes now. Not good, game breaking as well.
FW Missions (low priority, in order): I'm one of the guys who prefers FW missions over plexes because they give me an excuse to keep moving throughout the war theater. It is also fun to grief mission runners when I get the chance. 1. Put a "poison pill" in missions so they can be griefed.
I wonder if the issue of afk plexers who don't bring fighting ships could be mitigated by having a "poison pill" for plexes as well. Example: If sh** f** frig warps out of offensive plex, then defender should have the option of closing it either right away or within "X" minutes (say two minutes). If he chooses this option, he doesn't get VP and it doesn't count towards occupancy control. That way, guys like me who like to grief afk plexers/mission runners would have a chance at doing so.
Then these afk plexers/mission runners would have to be bring bigger ships fit more for pvp. Win/Win for everybody except afk alts.
Hopefully straighforward, and is a player-driven mechanism that can help force opponents out of sh** f** ships. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
452
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 17:40:00 -
[26] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:X Gallentius wrote: Prioirity List: FW Plexes (high priority, in order): 2. Fix plexing mechanics such that afk warp core-stabbed shi** f** frigs cannot speed tank offensive plexes. (Put in a requirement that all rats must be killed is one solution). Edit:Apparently afk repping Incursus' are solo'ing Caldari plexes now. Not good, game breaking as well.
FW Missions (low priority, in order): I'm one of the guys who prefers FW missions over plexes because they give me an excuse to keep moving throughout the war theater. It is also fun to grief mission runners when I get the chance. 1. Put a "poison pill" in missions so they can be griefed.
I wonder if the issue of afk plexers who don't bring fighting ships could be mitigated by having a "poison pill" for plexes as well. Example: If sh** f** frig warps out of offensive plex, then defender should have the option of closing it either right away or within "X" minutes (say two minutes). If he chooses this option, he doesn't get VP and it doesn't count towards occupancy control. That way, guys like me who like to grief afk plexers/mission runners would have a chance at doing so. Then these afk plexers/mission runners would have to be bring bigger ships fit more for pvp. Win/Win for everybody except afk alts. Hopefully straighforward, and is a player-driven mechanism that can help force opponents out of sh** f** ships.
I'm not in favor of a poison pill for missions. I think they are pve content pure and simple. They are one of the very few successful types of pve content in low sec. I don't see any reason to grief it out of existance.
As far as plexes though, I think they should be a pvp mechanic so the idea has some merit. I also agree that chasing ninja/rabbit plexing is problem.
However what would prevent a larger fleet from just making the rounds and poisoning all the plexes? It would seem a smaller group wouldn't be able to effective force a blob to split up.
I really think if we just got a notification when plexes were entered we would take a huge chunk out of ninja/rabbit plexing. You wouldn't need to ever continue chasing them again. Every time they entered a plex you would just be automatically notified. 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
2418
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 21:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I'll start gathering a list of the talking points the players would like addressed in the summit and periodically sticky it right here in this space! Thanks for your input everyone.... Did the summit already happen? What were the talking points you hit? Thanks
Yup, summit is over with!
Here are the main talking points I hit on:
Imminent issues:
- BUGS BUGS BUGS, Fix the damn bugs, CCP!!
- Monitoring for signs of one faction "steamrolling" the other, issues created by this, methods to address it.
- LP payouts in plexing - can't we award *everyone* for participating, not just button huggers? Also brought up defensive plexing, its currently the kind of rewardless obligatory grind we've been trying to avoid building into this new Sov system.
High Priority iterations, the "next step" projects to work on
- NPC balancing, E-war issues, etc
- Plex mechanics themselves - which plexes allow for which size ship, that sort of thing. Ways to diversify the types of engagements to be found in FW.
- System upgrades - these need to be ATTRACTIVE and worth fighting over. All of us on the CSM recommended *improving* industrial capability in low sec, not just the number of slots. I revisted cyno-jammers and reiterated the importance this feature is to many in the community and addressed some of the balancing concerns.
- Missions - I reiterated that missions should NOT trump PvP / plexing on the rewards scale, we don't want to incentive PvE in a feature that is designed primarily to foster PvP. Mission spawning also an issue, its kinda wonky that missions are no longer spawning in enemy territory. Also, the age-old bomber farming issue.
- Ranks, additional UI features, etc.
Thanks for the interest, I'll be pretty busy here in the weeks ahead working on the minutes, but I wanted to be sure to catch everyone up on the discussion we had!
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
452
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 23:39:00 -
[28] - Quote
From the dev blog:
"We crave for feedback and we are not stopping here: we are committed into keep looking at Factional Warfare during next release as well and your feedback will ensure we are doing it right.
As a parting gift, here are some points for us to consider in the near future: GÇó Keeping an eye on the items mentioned here as the situation evolves GÇô especially station docking and datacore changes"
Did you ask what criteria they were looking at regarding station docking?
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
2418
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 02:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
Cearain wrote:From the dev blog:
"We crave for feedback and we are not stopping here: we are committed into keep looking at Factional Warfare during next release as well and your feedback will ensure we are doing it right.
As a parting gift, here are some points for us to consider in the near future: GÇó Keeping an eye on the items mentioned here as the situation evolves GÇô especially station docking and datacore changes"
Did you ask what criteria they were looking at regarding station docking?
We certainly touched on the station docking issue, I asked about whether we can make it a high-level upgrade rather than a fixed penalty, and the idea was received well by CCP. I don't know what that means in terms of implementation, I'll have to follow up with them about it during our post-summit forum/skype discussions. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
452
|
Posted - 2012.06.03 14:17:00 -
[30] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote:From the dev blog:
"We crave for feedback and we are not stopping here: we are committed into keep looking at Factional Warfare during next release as well and your feedback will ensure we are doing it right.
As a parting gift, here are some points for us to consider in the near future: GÇó Keeping an eye on the items mentioned here as the situation evolves GÇô especially station docking and datacore changes"
Did you ask what criteria they were looking at regarding station docking?
We certainly touched on the station docking issue, I asked about whether we can make it a high-level upgrade rather than a fixed penalty, and the idea was received well by CCP. I don't know what that means in terms of implementation, I'll have to follow up with them about it during our post-summit forum/skype discussions.
Thanks I am glad it came up. As you may know I don't like this rule. Others however seem convinced that every kill in faction war before and after the patch is due to station lock outs.
Why not make everyone happy? There are two fronts. (cal/gallente and min/amarr) Keep the lockouts in one front and do away with them completely in the other. Most people who don't have a strong feeling either way can just stay in whatever front they want. However if someone does have a strong opinion CCP can offer they game play they are after. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |