Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Uppsy Daisy
State Protectorate Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 15:52:00 -
[721] - Quote
Also there is an 'official test server feedback' thread here for the 'Alliances can join FW' feature.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54054&find=unread |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:08:00 -
[722] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Cearain wrote:heres some more from a dev blog by CCP Ytterbium:
"Some final words
It is important to remember that all the above is not a "fix" for Factional Warfare. It is only the first step of many to put its implementation back into the original vision that was ours during the Empyrean Age release."
So things are really looking up for faction war. Errrm, check the date and content of that blog. It is 30 months (2.5yrs) old, was the 'filler' patch that populated the LP store not much else and was as far as I know the last "major" work that was done on FW up until now. In short: It says diddly squat of what may be heading our way .. just sayin'
So we have had allot to look forward to for years! Isn't that wonderful?
Seriously, did you have to call it out so fast? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
717
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:09:00 -
[723] - Quote
I just wanted to let everyone know that I've spoken out about the Alliance-into-FW change currently in the pipeline for Tranquility - responding in this post.
I made sure to separate my own personal thoughts on the matter with what YOU, the community, have stated pretty clearly over the last few months of intensified feedback (supported by polls on Shalee Lianne's Sov Wars Blog).
Even those saying they liked the idea did so with certain provisions (like not being able to hold Sov) that are NOT being considered for this release, other than a simple standings requirement.
Before everyone panics too hard, remember the standings requirement alone will restrict a large number of Alliances from participating, but that doesnt change the resource issue (farming FW missions) or the "weekend warrior" issue of Alliance joining on a whim during boring periods and leaving just as fast without contributing anything lasting to the community or ongoing conflict.
Whichever side of the issue you're on, NOW is the time to speak up, speak loud, and be heard before this goes into effect. If it does go into effect, I want to make sure its because YOU, the FW community, embraced the idea and not because CCP is simply tackling the easiest changes first without considering the impact this could have. |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:28:00 -
[724] - Quote
With the upcoming change to allow Alliances to join FW, I feel a few things need to be tweaked to avoid OMGWTFBBQ.
First off, don't allow Alliances to join FW. Instead name it something like a Coalition, that functions in the exact same way as an alliance would. Change the Executor Corp name to something more militaryesque such ass "Faction Command" or w/e. The corp founding the alliance has to be in FW for at least a year, or have 5.0 standings with their faction of choice. The reason is to not make FW some vacation blob fest, those who are dedicated to the cause of losec small scale warfare should be dedicated to the faction they are fighting for. If losec is meant to be a stepping stone to o.0, there should be a stepping stone Alliance feature. Coalitions would fit this role perfectly.
All Sov will be for the faction. Meaning FW can claim nullsec space for the glory and freedom of our oppressed brothers under the tyrannical Amarr oppressors. This may be a good idea or not. Im not sure how or what changes nullsec will have.
To make fighting over a button have more meaning, allow Coalitions to set up system upgrades in losec we have captured. These upgrades wouldnt be like the ones in o.0 that are isk faucets. No, these will be more interesting like weak ass annoying navy rats that can easily be tanked that chase opposing FW members around system after 20 minutes or so that point. Or making it impossible for the Amarr to dock in TLF station and vice versa. Or spawn an incursion type system when a system is about to be taken over or defended, multiple buttons that all need objectives to be completed, that have that scaling rewards amount incursions do. The more people you try and pile in, the less points you get towards the incursion. Not a sansha incursion tho, use that type of system because I think it has potential in something called FW.
Just some thoughts and ideas on how I feel faction warfare should be if Alliance type gameplay is given to us.
If it all happens that is
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:30:00 -
[725] - Quote
Corporate standings are an average of member standings, since most if not all characters (young and old) have done missions and ratting it becomes fairly easy for a corp to have 0.5 with at least one faction but more likely with all four. Problem is that standings are rather meaningless as they can be bought, sold and speculated in .. just ask career mission runners. It simply wont work on a large scale .. RKK's holiday in FW proved that standings are not a hindrance.
Question is what alliances want in and why. The RP alliances (EM, CVA, SF, U'K et al.) obviously have a vested interest, but what about the generic alliances .. what/why would they want in? I am willing to bet that for the most part it is ONLY to get cheap'n'easy faction ships/mods and padding for killboards .. let that rabble in and FW dies under the weight of a thousand+ sheep.
Othran I think it was brought a problem regarding using sov status as a barrier to light, easy enough for renter alliances or any alliance really to be 'space-less' while still having complete access to everything thanks to the deep blue sea of null. Setup an alt alliance to hold the actual sov and all mains can go blob FW to death or create the greatest mission-bomber swarm the world has ever known.
A lot of us have already done our time as null-dwellers but chose to have fun instead (FWFTW!), don't take away the last refuge of fun to be found in Eve! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
720
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:35:00 -
[726] - Quote
M'nu wrote: All Sov will be for the faction. Meaning FW can claim nullsec space for the glory and freedom of our oppressed brothers under the tyrannical Amarr oppressors. This may be a good idea or not. Im not sure how or what changes nullsec will have.
While all of your ideas are great food for thought, M'Nu, this one is my favorite!!
Most Faction Warfare pilots agree that nullsec Alliances should be forced to give up Sov to participate in Faction Warfare. However, CCP has not included that as a requirement as of yet.
If sovereignty-holding alliances are allowed to join Faction Warfare - than any Sov that the Alliances hold should be declared as an extension of Faction-owned space, its only fair.
This way, if CVA or EM or UK want to join Faction Warfare, they can actually claim nullsec territory for the Republic or for the Empire.
This should be a two way street if we're involving nullsec sov in the mix - all of the Amarr militia should be able to help CVA win Providence for the Empire, or vice versa.
|
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
342
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:42:00 -
[727] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:M'nu wrote: All Sov will be for the faction. Meaning FW can claim nullsec space for the glory and freedom of our oppressed brothers under the tyrannical Amarr oppressors. This may be a good idea or not. Im not sure how or what changes nullsec will have.
While all of your ideas are great food for thought, M'Nu, this one is my favorite!! Most Faction Warfare pilots agree that nullsec Alliances should be forced to give up Sov to participate in Faction Warfare. However, CCP has not included that as a requirement as of yet. If sovereignty-holding alliances are allowed to join Faction Warfare - than any Sov that the Alliances hold should be declared as an extension of Faction-owned space, its only fair. This way, if CVA or EM or UK want to join Faction Warfare, they can actually claim nullsec territory for the Republic or for the Empire. This should be a two way street if we're involving nullsec sov in the mix - all of the Amarr militia should be able to help CVA win Providence for the Empire, or vice versa.
+1
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:53:00 -
[728] - Quote
How does making the militia's into null-bears with NPC flags solve anything?
You'll be entirely dependent on the same mechanics as any null slave/small alliance, that is you will need to appease/bend-over for the nearest bloc. Has merit when/if sovereignty is made less of a blobbing game though. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
721
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:04:00 -
[729] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:How does making the militia's into null-bears with NPC flags solve anything?
You'll be entirely dependent on the same mechanics as any null slave/small alliance, that is you will need to appease/bend-over for the nearest bloc. Has merit when/if sovereignty is made less of a blobbing game though.
You're absolutely right, it doesnt solve anything.
I'm not saying that Faction Warfare should become just like nullsec - though allowing sov-holding alliances into FW, or the reverse, will do just that.
Faction Warfare SHOULD have a gameplay identity and feel that is an alternative to nullsec, and is focused on casual, pickup, ship to ship combat and fleet / gang work rather than all the trappings of advanced large-scale resource management.
I'm simply saying that its a two way street - IF CCP decides to go through with this without requiring the giving up of Sovereignty, than we better be able to put our name and Faction ownership back onto nullsec as well. That is the only way we stand to benefit from allowing Alliances with already superior resources from nullsec to join our ranks in the first place.
But you're right. That just makes us a clone of null, and doesnt fundamentally improve the system at all. It very well could destroy the unique identity of Faction Warfare gameplay if the core system isn't iterated upon first BEFORE the alliances are allowed it. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
92
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:04:00 -
[730] - Quote
Seems people are forgetting alot of FW players are in FW because NULL is ******* BORING. Sov war, who the **** wants that.
As for this lastest "FIX" whatever, Im just in it for the fun of flying with friends. I gave up giving a **** about FW a while ago. If it gets too blob fest = win, then eve has other space, or the internet has other games.
One of those. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
721
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:13:00 -
[731] - Quote
Attention everyone!! Shalee has done me the courtesy of posting a survey on Sov Wars where you can respond with your thoughts about the proposed Alliances change to Faction Warfare.
Please, please, please respond to this poll, its totally informal but could be useful for the CCP devs to gauge the community's reaction to such a change. I requested this because the previous poll on the topic was about sharing detailed reactions, but doesnt provide any ballpark numbers on just how the community feels about this.
Please encourage all your non-forum warrior friends to hop over to that poll and answer for me, I'd greatly appreciate it! Take a moment and send the link as a corp email. Once we get more numbers replying I'll share the results with the feedback thread.
Thanks! |
Sakkar Arenith
PIE Inc.
33
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:13:00 -
[732] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Seems people are forgetting alot of FW players are in FW because NULL is ******* BORING. Sov war, who the **** wants that.
As for this lastest "FIX" whatever, Im just in it for the fun of flying with friends. I gave up giving a **** about FW a while ago. If it gets too blob fest = win, then eve has other space, or the internet has other games.
One of those.
QFT!
As many boring and tedious flaws as FW might have atm, the ONE thing it certrainly doesnt need are more ******* blobs!
Why the hell does ccp think those in FW chose to do it in the first place?!
0.0 blobfare needs to be destroyed, not expanded into empire... |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
237
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:30:00 -
[733] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Attention everyone!! ... Damnit Shalee, what's with the ***** selections?
Where is the "Fix first, then entry with with more restrictions or provisions"?
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
725
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:05:00 -
[734] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Attention everyone!! ... Damnit Shalee, what's with the ***** selections? Where is the "Fix first, then entry with with more restrictions or provisions"?
Hey now, don't blame Shalee, she just copy pasted what I sent her. Blame me if you're upset with the poll. It started out as only three options - I'm quitting FW but not EvE, I'm quitting eve, or I'm staying in FW. I pushed her to expand the survey, knowing full well that even with 5 or 6 options there will always be one person with one opinion that doesnt fit.
Shalee deserves credit for allowing everyone to put precisely how they feel - the results of her own previous survey on the same topic were highly detailed comments from every single person that responded. Nobody's feelings were excluded on either side.
I insisted on her putting up a more limited (but not too limited) numerical survey only so that CCP could have some data to work with on the overall community consensus.
But polls are just that, polls, they always exclude someone or another and should be taken with a grain of salt. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:16:00 -
[735] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote: Othran I think it was brought a problem regarding using sov status as a barrier to light, easy enough for renter alliances or any alliance really to be 'space-less' while still having complete access to everything thanks to the deep blue sea of null. Setup an alt alliance to hold the actual sov and all mains can go blob FW to death or create the greatest mission-bomber swarm the world has ever known.
Well cant they just set up an alt corp and do that now? I'm not sure this changes anything in that regard.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
725
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:22:00 -
[736] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Hirana Yoshida wrote: Othran I think it was brought a problem regarding using sov status as a barrier to light, easy enough for renter alliances or any alliance really to be 'space-less' while still having complete access to everything thanks to the deep blue sea of null. Setup an alt alliance to hold the actual sov and all mains can go blob FW to death or create the greatest mission-bomber swarm the world has ever known.
Well cant they just set up an alt corp and do that now? I'm not sure this changes anything in that regard.
Yes, they can. No, it doesn't change that problem. This is still a big issue, which I personally should be addressed first before we expand the militia rosters.
If we fix the mission system to encourage PvP that ISNT just bombers and inty's (just give all the NPC's more target painters and missiles regardless of race) we can effectively prevent Alliances from joining up just to tap an extra source of income.
If the Alliances are allowed in before missions, plexing, and the other core mechanical issues breaking Faction Warfare are addressed, we will most certainly see some that enlist specifically to allow their members access to lucrative missions whether they live and PvP in the region or not. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:23:00 -
[737] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Hirana Yoshida wrote:How does making the militia's into null-bears with NPC flags solve anything?
You'll be entirely dependent on the same mechanics as any null slave/small alliance, that is you will need to appease/bend-over for the nearest bloc. Has merit when/if sovereignty is made less of a blobbing game though. You're absolutely right, it doesnt solve anything. I'm not saying that Faction Warfare should become just like nullsec - though allowing sov-holding alliances into FW, or the reverse, will do just that. Faction Warfare SHOULD have a gameplay identity and feel that is an alternative to nullsec, and is focused on casual, pickup, ship to ship combat and fleet / gang work rather than all the trappings of advanced large-scale resource management. I'm simply saying that its a two way street - IF CCP decides to go through with this without requiring the giving up of Sovereignty, than we better be able to put our name and Faction ownership back onto nullsec as well. That is the only way we stand to benefit from allowing Alliances with already superior resources from nullsec to join our ranks in the first place. But you're right. That just makes us a clone of null, and doesnt fundamentally improve the system at all. It very well could destroy the unique identity of Faction Warfare gameplay if the core system isn't iterated upon first BEFORE the alliances are allowed it.
I don't know if this is a good or bad path but what the heck:
What if an alliance could join fw. But if it joined and it held sov in 10 or more systems it had to donate 10% of them to the npc faction they represent. That section would effectively be more npc null sec. How stations would work I don't know but more npc null sec would be nice.
How other null sec alliances could potentially retake that space would have to be considered. Perhaps the side taking the space would have to fight for the other militia in order to free it back up for players. I don't know. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:27:00 -
[738] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote:Hirana Yoshida wrote: Othran I think it was brought a problem regarding using sov status as a barrier to light, easy enough for renter alliances or any alliance really to be 'space-less' while still having complete access to everything thanks to the deep blue sea of null. Setup an alt alliance to hold the actual sov and all mains can go blob FW to death or create the greatest mission-bomber swarm the world has ever known.
Well cant they just set up an alt corp and do that now? I'm not sure this changes anything in that regard. Yes, they can. No, it doesn't change that problem. This is still a big issue, which I personally should be addressed first before we expand the militia rosters. If we fix the mission system to encourage PvP that ISNT just bombers and inty's (just give all the NPC's more target painters and missiles regardless of race) we can effectively prevent Alliances from joining up just to tap an extra source of income. If the Alliances are allowed in before missions, plexing, and the other core mechanical issues breaking Faction Warfare are addressed, we will most certainly see some that enlist specifically to allow their members access to lucrative missions whether they live and PvP in the region or not.
Is it an issue? Are any big alliances making alt corps that go into fw? If they aren't now why would they start later?
I don't think you can - nor should you try to - make missions pvp. They are pve. Just fix missions so they can't be run in a solo stealth bomber and its done. Make them all like the amarr missions. Like you said, lots of target painters and missiles. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
725
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 01:44:00 -
[739] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I don't know if this is a good or bad path but what the heck:
What if an alliance could join fw. But if it joined and it held sov in 10 or more systems it had to donate 10% of them to the npc faction they represent. That section would effectively be more npc null sec. How stations would work I don't know but more npc null sec would be nice.
How other null sec alliances could potentially retake that space would have to be considered. Perhaps the side taking the space would have to fight for the other militia in order to free it back up for players. I don't know.
There are a lot of ways this could be done right, they all just take a bit more work. My fear here is that in an attempt to please all of us who want FW fixed, they're doing what most people do when you have a large work queue and impatient customers - you tackle the quick stuff first, than move on to the time-consuming stuff.
The problem is, that there really aren't any "easy" fixes to Faction Warfare. Allowing Alliances in may be a straightforward thing to program, much more so than a plexing revamp, or mission NPC AI overhaul, or incursion style occupancy consequences.
But the reality is, without those types of REAL iterations, stuff like simply ushering Alliances into an already broken system just means there will be twice as many people asking the questions "why are we fighting over this again?" and "why do these mechanics seemed to be designed for alts to ***** rather than genuinely compelling more people to fight more often?"
Core mechanics - whether they are incursions, nullsec sovereignty, or Faction Warfare systems - are the skeleton around which the flesh (the collective capsuleers who participate) are built around. Right now, these core systems are weak, and rather than have a strong player-driven machine that keeps people fighting and having fun, the skeleton was rotted out long ago and has been incapable of entertaining a larger community for a longer length of time. Yes, we all still participate, but out of a masochistic love of killing our favorite enemies, not because we're intrigued and entertained by the process of missioning or plex capturing itself.
CCP is aware of this, and has been talking about this with the CSM, this was the whole point of making summer expansion about core system iteration and not about more "jesus features".
This new mindset on development is precisely why I'm urging to CCP to take community feedback with much weight here - if the core system is too weak to support long-term player interest, temporarily adding more numbers just tests and strains the underlying mechanics even further. It'll only usher a new batch of bittervets and FW complainers like us who rightfully ask for something so much more meaningful and lasting in terms of gameplay improvements.
I'm not going to definitively say CCP should or should not do this at this point in time - I'm simply urging them to allow the FW community, who they are reaching out to with this, to decide whether we are willing to wait till after summer to allow Alliances in, or whether we are so anxious for ANYTHING that we'll settle for this right now, issues and all. |
Brujo Loco
Brujeria Teologica
295
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 02:31:00 -
[740] - Quote
Alliances in FW ... meh, there goes the LAST bastion where any sane person could take refuge without Alliances setting their dirty claws in.
Eternal death of FW if alliances are set in, lol killboard farming and one sided pushing, why turn FW into Null Sec mechanics? I mean, isnt THE WHOLE OF EVE surrounded by Null Sec already? What's with the let's bring Null Sec into everything eve?
I quite enjoyed the few days I was in FW, met some nice people and actually engaged in some fun run and hide tactics.
With Alliances you just turn it into an awful crap fest of the same nightmare null sec is already.
Oh well ... meh, forever alone with my apple pie. Inner Sayings of BrujoLoco: http://eve-files.com/sig/brujoloco |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
725
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 02:46:00 -
[741] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Is it an issue? Are any big alliances making alt corps that go into fw? If they aren't now why would they start later?
I don't think you can - nor should you try to - make missions pvp. They are pve. Just fix missions so they can't be run in a solo stealth bomber and its done. Make them all like the amarr missions. Like you said, lots of target painters and missiles.
Well, we don't know whose alts they are, but there's a lot of LP rewards on the market being sold by those that aren't out PvPing. and its not like anyone's going to stand up and say "Hey, here at _______ Alliance we LOVE sending alts into the militias to farm LP" because they'd be an instant target. Our corporation has had no qualms wardeccing corporations that we catch abusing the LP system. It's a bit like fighting bots though - very much a game of whack-a-mole in terms of long term success if the underlying mechanics arent addressed by CCP.
As for missions, they most certainly are PvP however you slice it. The minute those missions appear on an overview, they've changed from being a discreet income opportunity to becoming a giant "COME ATTACK ME, I'M DOWN FOR PEW" sign. I still farm missions in bombers and I've never ONCE gone on a run where I haven't been actively pursued along the way. You MUST know PvP basics (defensive scanning, threat assessment, manual piloting, etc) if you want to run the missions and be successful. Faction Warfare should provide more lucrative rewards than highsec, but militia pilots should always face enemy hostility and intervention as well. We could be making the most money because we successfully thwarted our PvP attackers - right now the way you make the most isk is by evading any combat whatsoever and by doing your own missioning. I've logged in to see several corpmates all solo farming because its more efficient than teaming up and working together. Needless to say that's a bit borked.
Its too funny, I almost put all this into my other post in the Zombie Kitten thread, starting out with "And I know what you're going to say about missions, Cearain!" but eliminated it for the sake of brevity (not that any my posts are that brief).
I know you're all about the PvP - but the cool thing about Faction Warfare is that it has great potential to mix the two if the poor, outdated NPC AI was balanced properly. Players don't HAVE to choose one or the other - nothing is more satisfying than killing an enemy where he's lost more than just the one ship - he's lost precious time he needs to stay resupplied in the long run.
TL:DR - Plexing should be all about PvP in gangs. Missions should invite PvP in gangs. ALL of Faction Warfare should revolve around PvP in gangs. No need to keep saying "This should only be PvE, this should only be PvP", you can certainly have a world of both if the NPC AI gets revisited and rebalanced. |
Shalee Lianne
Imperial Outlaws
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 03:25:00 -
[742] - Quote
Alliances in faction war? Booooooo. I could write a huge long essay on why that would suck but I'm sure countless others have said it already.
So I'll just leave my opinion short and simple. BOOO.
http://amarrian.blogspot.com/ -á~ Roleplay blog.http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
239
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 08:03:00 -
[743] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:...The problem is, that there really aren't any "easy" fixes to Faction Warfare. Allowing Alliances in may be a straightforward thing to program, much more so than a plexing revamp, or mission NPC AI overhaul, or incursion style occupancy consequences... This is what worries me. It was one of the very first requests made, came up during the discussions prior to expansion deploying but it hasn't even been on the table 'for realz' until now .. when a new crew are in charge of the code. Smells like the old crew saw some of the implications and shelved it until measures could be put in while the new crew is trying to tick off boxes on their web-spider collated FW wishlist.
If that fear/assumption is realised then FW is toast |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
260
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:43:00 -
[744] - Quote
So I can "get my feet wet" in PvP by being hot dropped by titans and shot by people whose allegiance is most certainly not to the colors they are flying?
If I ever had any hope of participating in FW CCP has just utterly crushed that. Instead of improving on FW they just made it a nightmare for themselves to ever balance in the future.
In short, FW went from "poorly balanced but got potential" to "more of the same ****". Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Eggduck
Celestial Apocalypse
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:55:00 -
[745] - Quote
There goes the neighbourhood.
I joined FW just to NOT have to deal with the big megalomaniac Alliances.
If its going live i forsee a big downfall for the FUN that fw can bring, and fights that can be brought down to "who has the biggest wallet."
Hope its a fail on sisi.
Eggduck |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
240
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:11:00 -
[746] - Quote
Eggduck wrote:...Hope its a fail on sisi. As it was pointed out to me when I voiced the same prayer .. SiSi is anaemic compared to TQ so all that can really be tested is an executors ability to push the join button.
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
17
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 14:43:00 -
[747] - Quote
To CCP: Do you envision a dynamic that sets FW apart from other gameplay in EVE, if so, what is that dynamic?
Personally, I don't think making FW simply more accessible is the route to go. If there's a great enough incentive people will come and will find ways to make the system work for them. Think of the initial progress towards player alliances in the early days. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 14:51:00 -
[748] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:So I can "get my feet wet" in PvP by being hot dropped by titans and shot by people whose allegiance is most certainly not to the colors they are flying?
If I ever had any hope of participating in FW CCP has just utterly crushed that. Instead of improving on FW they just made it a nightmare for themselves to ever balance in the future.
In short, FW went from "poorly balanced but got potential" to "more of the same ****".
+1, I feel the same FW was my intended destination of Eve career, but I think I'll be revising my plans if the null sec alliances start moving in. I saw FW as an alternative to null sec slavery, I'm not so sure this will actually be the case in the future. |
Gallactica
Shadows Of The Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:21:00 -
[749] - Quote
Who says all the big 0.0 alliances will join? Lets see how it transpires before the sky is falling in.
You get the bigger 0.0 people doing drops anyway, hopefully this will give us FW people more to shoot at and is going to provide a lot more high sec pinatas :) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
731
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 17:22:00 -
[750] - Quote
Jowen Datloran wrote:So I can "get my feet wet" in PvP by being hot dropped by titans and shot by people whose allegiance is most certainly not to the colors they are flying?
If I ever had any hope of participating in FW CCP has just utterly crushed that. Instead of improving on FW they just made it a nightmare for themselves to ever balance in the future.
In short, FW went from "poorly balanced but got potential" to "more of the same ****".
Oh, and if you wanted an easy to improvement FW you should have banned super caps from low sec instead. Now THAT would have changed the nature of the game and allowed a different kind of PvP experience to grow. But, meh, it's dead.
Well said. This is perhaps the strongest argument against such a change, the point of Faction Warfare to begin with was to provide a platform for pickup PvP (It used to be considered noobie PvP but the militia pilots are just as excellent at PvP as any Allliance pilot these days, if not better) without all the trappings of nullsec sov, resource management, capitals, and the like.
Faction Warfare outgrew that "newbie PvP" thing over a year ago, when capitals started becoming a normal part of Factional Warfare. But whether its for new players or Veterans, I think most of us who have participated in it all along value the casual PvP nature of FW, which could be compromised by this change.
You're absolutely right, this change is a stepping stone towards making lowsec just like nullsec - and is a band-aid approach to improving Factional Warfare. Regardless of whether you think this will or won't "destroy FW as we know it" the fact remains that this change does nothing to address the core issues facing the Faction Warfare system.
I would vastly prefer that CCP invite more people into FW by making it a genuinely fun and meaningful mechanical system, fixing the bugs, upgrading the NPC AI, plex system, etc, adding more rewards / penalties for occupancy, than just drop an arbitrary barrier and let a new crowd in that will be just as confused and disappointed with the state of FW as those of us who have been here all along have been.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |