Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 08:13:00 -
[1]
Dear CCP please make alliances in militia possible so we can avoid usual high sec griefers f*g*try.
Nothing against the wdecks (despite the fact, that I hate highsec station gaming), but rest of CDI will just have to pay a lot for response wdecks and it takes 2-3 days begore they apply.
AND PLEASE FIRE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR FW DEVELOPMENT AS THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY OUT. MILITIA WDECK MECHANICS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES NOT SOLVED FOR LAST 2 YEARS!
"There is no honor in war" |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 09:01:00 -
[2]
Supporting! We've been dealing with the EXACT same issues in the MDP for almost a year now. Welcome to the club.
|
Ore Vampire
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 09:25:00 -
[3]
Originally by: chatgris Supporting! We've been dealing with the EXACT same issues in the MDP for almost a year now. Welcome to the club.
well one of the reasons why MDP and CDI were created I guess, but still very annoying.
|
Pimpertron
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 15:16:00 -
[4]
If they allowed Aliances in FW people like -A- and Atlas would join and hot drop every single fight in low sec with stupid amount of cap ships.
I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 15:33:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Pimpertron If they allowed Aliances in FW people like -A- and Atlas would join and hot drop every single fight in low sec with stupid amount of cap ships.
I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
this happened in past and there is simple tactical solution to this ... really easy.
And if entities like -A- join FW it will just prove the fact it is more fun, then null boredom.
CCP fire the FW developers and listen to the FW warriors please.
"There is no honor in war" |
Andre Vauban
Gallente Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 16:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Pimpertron If they allowed Aliances in FW people like -A- and Atlas would join and hot drop every single fight in low sec with stupid amount of cap ships.
I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
Simple fix, if your alliance is a member of a militia they cannot hold sovereignty.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 17:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Andre Vauban
Originally by: Pimpertron If they allowed Aliances in FW people like -A- and Atlas would join and hot drop every single fight in low sec with stupid amount of cap ships.
I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
Simple fix, if your alliance is a member of a militia they cannot hold sovereignty.
Which CCP actually had in the notes from their last CSM meeting - but when will they implement it? Who knows.
|
Isaac Avernas
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2010.06.08 17:46:00 -
[8]
Should probably stop asking for them to fire people working on fw since there probably aren't any. Think there was one guy working on it last year. Would be a better idea to have them actually put people on it so we can get a lot of these things fixed or implemented instead of just talked about.
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 08:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Isaac Avernas Should probably stop asking for them to fire people working on fw since there probably aren't any. Think there was one guy working on it last year. Would be a better idea to have them actually put people on it so we can get a lot of these things fixed or implemented instead of just talked about.
there are people working as they are trying to fix/improve things, but they totally fail. I am in FW since the beginning and many things were working better in original implementation. Also many things were not fixed so far (despite being absolutely obvious exploits and bugs).
SO TO MAKE IT EXACT - CCP PLEASE FIRE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR FW AND FIX THE ISSUES!
"There is no honor in war" |
Gallactica
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 11:16:00 -
[10]
Agree 100% with Hidden Snake, there's got to be some way of creating official alliances with in FW.
There got to be a simple way to implement it surely.
|
|
Wiccerakith
Absinthe Brothers
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 13:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Pimpertron I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
This. Have fun with blobaritis tremens with caps then...
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 14:18:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Hidden Snake on 09/06/2010 14:19:57
Originally by: Wiccerakith
Originally by: Pimpertron I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
This. Have fun with blobaritis tremens with caps then...
Current unnoficial entities can create similar blobs like in null (with exceptions of sovereignity flipping cluster bash). So no big deal.
SO TO MAKE IT EXACT - CCP PLEASE FIRE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR FW AND FIX THE ISSUES!
"There is no honor in war" |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 16:47:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Pimpertron If they allowed Aliances in FW people like -A- and Atlas would join and hot drop every single fight in low sec with stupid amount of cap ships.
I would seriously think carefully before you allow such entities to join FW.
This is probably the one reason why it hasn't been done yet. During the initial discussions some 15-18 months ago or so, CCP suggested that an alliance could not have any sovereign space if they were to join FW and would need appropriate standings. An example of what might be done to facilitate alliances in FW.
FW has been coughing up blood for ages now and has generated enough friction in its death throes to heat a planet for a millenia .. about bloody time some resources were devoted to making it tolerable (even janitorial staff would suffice, probably do a better job than the travesty we have now).
PS: Please sack the people responsible for FW development.
|
kahhhhhnn
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 17:18:00 -
[14]
How dare people want to dec militia corps. That will interrupt mission running and sitting on the nour gate all day! Its not like people are in the militia to PVP.
Make it unpossible to dec milita corps! Also fire the CCP guy in dodixie last weekend because he didn't say hi to me in local.
|
Aiden Vorlan
Caldari Draconian Armada
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 17:49:00 -
[15]
I remember a few weeks back, there was a Thorax roaming around us that had been in a corporation that had wardecced Gunny's corporation (not IBS). He was talking about how if the frogs dropped us, that Thorax was going to pop him. Instead of waiting for it, a few of us went pie and fragged the Thorax.
Personally, I have no issues going pie for a bit and losing sec status if it's to help out a militiamate like Gunny, who is someone I know and respect. While it would be nice not to have to lose the security status, I know I can get it back easily.
First to fight for right and freedom, And to keep our honor clean!
Semper fidelis! |
Syekuda
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 17:55:00 -
[16]
I support this topic. give love to fw...it needs it
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 20:57:00 -
[17]
This should really be in Assembly Hall. Supported ofc.
|
Eelis Kiy
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 21:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: kahhhhhnn How dare people want to dec militia corps.
Asking for the ability for Alliance creation within militia corps has naff all to do with avoiding war decs. Like you said, people join FW to pvp -----------------------------
>>where the frack is my ship?<< |
Syekuda
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 00:25:00 -
[19]
Originally by: kahhhhhnn How dare people want to dec militia corps. That will interrupt mission running and sitting on the nour gate all day! Its not like people are in the militia to PVP.
Make it unpossible to dec milita corps! Also fire the CCP guy in dodixie last weekend because he didn't say hi to me in local.
This reminds me of something really important and a good point you bring...(I detected your sarcasm..don't worry).
When you go in the army or military, they usually suply the weapons, food well everything. Because they receive the money from the goverment since they have the money from the people's taxes.
Faction Warfare is no different. Its within the military right ? Its an army...a militia. From my understanding the "army" should provide us with the equipment ? This would remove most mission runners since you got the equipment.
Its not in this threads topic but still, I'm pretty sure someone here can give all the details to this idea. In the end you would have lots more people fighting and less mission runners. Not sure on the next part but I guess we wouldn't need any alliance because we would have more people to fight with and against of course.
ps: I could be very wrong with this idea.
|
kahhhhhnn
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 02:04:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Syekuda words
Actually IRL militia is more like a bunch of random people from a neighborhood with guns getting together to shoot people they don't like. Rather it be overthrowing some form of government or people shooting immigrants and the border.
And yes allowing alliance in militia is about stopping wardecs. It would raise cost of the decs to make them non-profitable. Back when I got deced by some merc corp back in November twas literally 20:1. I managed low and highsec pvp just fine with little hassle from them.
Unless you're in militia to RP(lol DJ) you just want someone to shoot at, being decced increases that pool. You shouldn't need half the milita to support your corp.
Also do you really want starfraction in FW? Do you all hate the amarr that much?
|
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 05:59:00 -
[21]
Originally by: kahhhhhnn How dare people want to dec militia corps. That will interrupt mission running and sitting on the nour gate all day! Its not like people are in the militia to PVP.
Make it unpossible to dec milita corps! Also fire the CCP guy in dodixie last weekend because he didn't say hi to me in local.
please read what i wrote ... i like the fights ... so wdecks are fine, problem is that we have unformal alliance and if some f.ags wdeck one of ours the response is too long and takes lot of isk (and aggressor is just laughing ... the last 4 did not as they lost ****load of stuff - but I do not like high sec fights with bunch of teenage high sec griefers who thinks how uber and smart they are).
"There is no honor in war" |
Sergei Le'Poof
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 06:47:00 -
[22]
The solution can be much simpler than allowing aliances in militia as the placeholder exists already. Every corp in militia, in your case caldari militia, is mamber of the caldari state "aliance". Declare war in corp part of the caldari state "aliance"? The war is against all the militia plus ie you are shoot on sight by hisec police.
|
Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 06:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Sergei Le'Poof The solution can be much simpler than allowing aliances in militia as the placeholder exists already. Every corp in militia, in your case caldari militia, is mamber of the caldari state "aliance". Declare war in corp part of the caldari state "aliance"? The war is against all the militia plus ie you are shoot on sight by hisec police.
The mechanics allow war-dec's of militia corps within your own militia, which is its whole other can of worms. These war-decs though are often the only means of defense against inner-militia greifing. Your idea would prevent inner-militia war decs which would give militia greifers relatively free reign unless the target corp drops FW and war deced the grefers from the outside which would red them to everybody militia (under your proposal) which would be annoying because all the sudden your buddies are red to you and you're even less effective against the greifers then when you were in militia.
I think allowing alliances in militia and that idea earlier of preventing them from holding sov is probably the best compromise. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
|
Sergei Le'Poof
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 07:00:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jin Nib
Originally by: Sergei Le'Poof The solution can be much simpler than allowing aliances in militia as the placeholder exists already. Every corp in militia, in your case caldari militia, is mamber of the caldari state "aliance". Declare war in corp part of the caldari state "aliance"? The war is against all the militia plus ie you are shoot on sight by hisec police.
The mechanics allow war-dec's of militia corps within your own militia, which is its whole other can of worms. These war-decs though are often the only means of defense against inner-militia greifing. Your idea would prevent inner-militia war decs which would give militia greifers relatively free reign unless the target corp drops FW and war deced the grefers from the outside which would red them to everybody militia (under your proposal) which would be annoying because all the sudden your buddies are red to you and you're even less effective against the greifers then when you were in militia.
I think allowing alliances in militia and that idea earlier of preventing them from holding sov is probably the best compromise.
Hmm I was not aware that such an amount of lameness exists in FW. Big flaw in my idea indeed.
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 07:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sergei Le'Poof
Originally by: Jin Nib
Originally by: Sergei Le'Poof The solution can be much simpler than allowing aliances in militia as the placeholder exists already. Every corp in militia, in your case caldari militia, is mamber of the caldari state "aliance". Declare war in corp part of the caldari state "aliance"? The war is against all the militia plus ie you are shoot on sight by hisec police.
The mechanics allow war-dec's of militia corps within your own militia, which is its whole other can of worms. These war-decs though are often the only means of defense against inner-militia greifing. Your idea would prevent inner-militia war decs which would give militia greifers relatively free reign unless the target corp drops FW and war deced the grefers from the outside which would red them to everybody militia (under your proposal) which would be annoying because all the sudden your buddies are red to you and you're even less effective against the greifers then when you were in militia.
I think allowing alliances in militia and that idea earlier of preventing them from holding sov is probably the best compromise.
Hmm I was not aware that such an amount of lameness exists in FW. Big flaw in my idea indeed.
in general if you allow alliances inside militia you will make even in militia griefing harder because wdecks costs more and inmilitia griefers are usually small corps of pirates (and ******s).
"There is no honor in war" |
CyberRaver
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:15:00 -
[26]
I find your tears strangely satisfying, specially after you won the first engagement with use of a spy and a FLEET of neutral RR, so its ok when the game mechanics are in your favour but not in ours? Either way i look forward to many good fights this coming weekend
|
Ratchman
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 11:21:00 -
[27]
Perhaps this could be resolved by having a separate form of alliance (perhaps with a slightly different name) with a very basic level of interaction. This would allow the FW corps to band together in their own alliances, and prevent other alliances from exploiting it to their own ends. Maybe it would work in the way that if one corp is wardecced, it would cost as normal, but the other members of the militia alliance could get a free wardec against the aggressor corp.
I have to say, I'm with Hidden Snake on this. It would help organisation immensely, and avoid needless expenditure on wardecs. I've no problems with wardecs as such, as it in the absence of Caldari, it gives us something to shoot at, but people do use these tactics as a way of disrupting operations, so allied corps HAVE to shell out if they want to continue fighting as a group unhindered.
It's a bit harsh calling for the developers to be sacked though. They just need to dedicate a little time to FW. Now we've had the sovereignty patch, and now the PI patch, maybe there will be something FW-shaped on the horizon? Changing the geography a little would be nice too. Things get a little stale with the same strategic points that never change.
|
Hidden Snake
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: CyberRaver I find your tears strangely satisfying, specially after you won the first engagement with use of a spy and a FLEET of neutral RR, so its ok when the game mechanics are in your favour but not in ours? Either way i look forward to many good fights this coming weekend
oh little teenage demands fair fights? OMFG you have no idea what ur facing man.
BTW you are just another f.ag in the row ... we dealt with many before...and you are just pushed by buthurted Hexxed (new members of yours), which wants some revenge from last war. Sad but usual among high sec boys.
I dont have problem with wdeck - it keeps boys sharp even in high sec ... what sucks is that CDI have to pay horrendous isk and it takes too much time to get them into fights (ie killmails).
"There is no honor in war" |
CyberRaver
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 12:51:00 -
[29]
lol teenager (you have no idea) And nah im pretty sure you were just pulled out the hat, and its nice hearing its costing your friends isk, look forward to it all the more :) And your yet to catch me personally, apperently your battleship pilots dont fit points As i said im not butthurt, im in it for the pew pew, having opponents who fight is all the more fun :) Hope to see you this weekend :P
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.06.10 13:58:00 -
[30]
Just shoot them in lowsec? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |