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) |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 01:11:00 -
[241] - Quote
Silence iKillYouu wrote:Take away NPC corps Take away NPC Navys Make plex's worth fighting over. Make them more like mini incursions. Fix the bombers-farming-missions problem
Should all be fairly easy
fypm |
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 07:14:00 -
[242] - Quote
I suspect Hans is a carebear.
The idea that fw is entry level pvp is idiotic. Fw missions as a way to 'attract' more people is counterproductive. Alliances joining FW will also completely break it.
Its really easy to spot who in this thread uses FW to make a profit, and who actually PvPs in it. The people who want it to stay 'safe' and those who think it should become more hardcore.
I am of the opinion that people have become mighty soft. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 07:47:00 -
[243] - Quote
Ruah Piskonit wrote:I suspect Hans is a carebear.
The idea that fw is entry level pvp is idiotic. Fw missions as a way to 'attract' more people is counterproductive. Alliances joining FW will also completely break it.
Its really easy to spot who in this thread uses FW to make a profit, and who actually PvPs in it. The people who want it to stay 'safe' and those who think it should become more hardcore.
I am of the opinion that people have become mighty soft.
Wait you don't like roaming and seeing dozens of SBs running mission? WTF and here I thought that was only me.
Whats even funnier is the Null sec guys that clearly have alts in FW for the missions dropping their 2 cents in. Guess they dont wanna risk carrier site running, not when they can make 300m an hours in a SB.
|
ArmyOfMe
TEDDYBEARS. Excuses.
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 07:57:00 -
[244] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Ruah Piskonit wrote:I suspect Hans is a carebear.
The idea that fw is entry level pvp is idiotic. Fw missions as a way to 'attract' more people is counterproductive. Alliances joining FW will also completely break it.
Its really easy to spot who in this thread uses FW to make a profit, and who actually PvPs in it. The people who want it to stay 'safe' and those who think it should become more hardcore.
I am of the opinion that people have become mighty soft. Wait you don't like roaming and seeing dozens of SBs running mission? WTF and here I thought that was only me.
Whats even funnier is the Null sec guys that clearly have alts in FW for the missions dropping their 2 cents in. Guess they dont wanna risk carrier site running, not when they can make 300m an hours in a SB.
This does indeed look to be the truth sadly. FW needs to be made more hardcore, and the ammount of isk u can make from missions needs to be changed as well
CCP, for the love of god boost the deimos..... |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 13:53:00 -
[245] - Quote
It certainly appears Bengal Bob is correct, but just in case the Devs really are still reading this:
The Lowest of the "Low Hanging Fruit" tasks that could ever be accomplished by the Dev Team for this winter.
Plot FW Occupancy Heat Map as an absolute value rather than a relative value.
i.e. Heat(j) = amount_contested(j)/amount_need_to_make_vulnerable, where "j" it the jth system under consideration. This way FW pilots would know how critical it is for them to fight over a system. If the "heat" is low, then they can do other stuff, but if the "heat" is high then they ought to turn their attention to that system.
Currently the in game map plots a heat map to show which systems are contested and by how much they are contested relative to the most contested system. Something like Heat(j) = amount_contested(X(j))/max(amount_contested(X)), where X is the systems being interrogated. This makes it very difficult for somebody looking at the map to figure out whether or not they should spend their time helping out.
tl;dr Replace max(amount_contested) with amount_needed_to_make_system_vulnerable.
REPLACE ONE WORD IN YOUR CODE! Do it! |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 13:56:00 -
[246] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Wait you don't like roaming and seeing dozens of SBs running mission? WTF and here I thought that was only me.
Whats even funnier is the Null sec guys that clearly have alts in FW for the missions dropping their 2 cents in. Guess they dont wanna risk carrier site running, not when they can make 300m an hours in a SB. [/i] Luminaire General X Gallentius signing up for anti-stealth bomber mission running duty. Give me the tools (poison pills) to take them down CCP! (see: Roleplay, and player enforced limits to exploits) |
Lugalzagezi666
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:32:00 -
[247] - Quote
Hey, you already have the tools - you can sit cloaked and waste your time there, while farmer completes 5 other missions.
No seriously, making fw missions be easily blitzable in bomber /or bomber + inty/ was stupid idea from the start. Something like being able to decline any number of fw missions without standings loss.
|
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 16:53:00 -
[248] - Quote
There is one thing I would like to see ESPECIALLY if FW was taken into high sec by way of faction police removal. It would be awesome if people with low sec status could join a militia and while a member could travel into high security space. A Dirty Dozen-esque 'serve to redeem yourself' mechanic would be a fun way to allow career PVPers to participate. Of course this would need to be balanced out so that pirates couldn't abuse it. Perhaps a certain number of solo or gang kills against enemy militias is required weekly/monthly for an outlaw to maintain their amnesty in high sec. This would also be a slight buff to low sec by giving pirates something to do when traffic is dead as well as access to high sec trade hubs.
This would need to be regulated (heavily) of course to prevent abuse, but I think the idea has some merit. I don't think it's over CCP's heads to invent a good system to keep this balanced. Anyone else have thoughts on this? |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 18:08:00 -
[249] - Quote
Removal of FW NPC from high sec will lead to gay high sec RR docking games at mission and market hubs. \o/
All the veteran players will stay in low sec and not bother with them, younger players without alts will be griefed endlessly.
|
zero2espect
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:09:00 -
[250] - Quote
while i applaud you for trying to get the biggest bunch of girlz in eve (EM) into FW - all of your ideas apart from removing big non faction alliances from FW space are tbh just bad. verging on idiotic.
all serious FW pilots should just boycot this thread.
what faction warfare needs is real rewards for plexing. bonuses (or non-reverse) bonuses for fights in FW systems.
not the ability for people who are cowards to join fw to blob it out while sucking moon goo out of 0.0.
i'd love to see faction pilots able to deploy interdictor bubbles in fw space as it adds another dimension to the game. no large bubble camps though. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
316
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:22:00 -
[251] - Quote
Ruah Piskonit wrote: Its really easy to spot who in this thread uses FW to make a profit, and who actually PvPs in it.
It's called a killboard, go use it.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
316
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:34:00 -
[252] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: "go ahead, take away my ability to bomb all the missions". Just make us able to earn the same income / hour with a gang, and we'll be good.
Also guys, please take the time to actually read previous posts before you go off half cocked and make ignorant statements.
I've consistently said that missioning should not be able to be abused for profit, and I've consistently said that the ability to solo missions should be nerfed, to encourage fleetwork not solo work.
I've also pointed out that the need to have an income potential from FW stems from the fact that we lose ships regularly, and I've also stated before that rewards should be stepped up in plexing, moreso than missions.
Lets keep this thread respectful, and if you're going to rant, read about **** first.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
316
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:41:00 -
[253] - Quote
zero2espect wrote: not the ability for people who are cowards to join fw to blob it out while sucking moon goo out of 0.0.
The reasons why Alliance participation does not mean blobbing if they fix the mechanics have been well documented in this thread.
Whether blobs form and fight each other or not has nothing to do with whether its Alliance members doing it or not, its the current plexing mechanics that discourage people from even using the plexes, and thus lead to blobbing on gates, belts, etc.
The militias blob themselves far too much, this has nothing to do with "filthy moon goo suckers", its a mechanics issue.
But clearly you've got a need to stereotype players, and hate on alliance members as if they're all the same and all use the same tactics.
If you want a medal for your bravado and swagger, I'll be happy to give you one. Everyone, zero2espect is a badass pilot, and has a bigger 3p33n than all of you. You're all cowards if you dont **** **** up as much as them.
Ok, hopefully now we can move on and get to discussing ideas again.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
316
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:42:00 -
[254] - Quote
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:Hey, you already have the tools - you can sit cloaked and waste your time there, while farmer completes 5 other missions. No seriously, making fw missions be easily blitzable in bomber /or bomber + inty/ was stupid idea from the start. Something like being able to decline any number of fw missions without standings loss.
Agreed, indeed. If we're going to have missions at all, they should not be blitzable in solo ship. The difficulty level should be set so the most effecient way to complete the missions is as a fleet. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Narwhals Ate My Duck
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 20:57:00 -
[255] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lugalzagezi666 wrote:Hey, you already have the tools - you can sit cloaked and waste your time there, while farmer completes 5 other missions. No seriously, making fw missions be easily blitzable in bomber /or bomber + inty/ was stupid idea from the start. Something like being able to decline any number of fw missions without standings loss. Agreed, indeed. If we're going to have missions at all, they should not be blitzable in solo ship. The difficulty level should be set so the most effecient way to complete the missions is as a fleet.
Which could be done with a system not dissimilar to Incursions.
And when we're talking Incursions, I think Minmatar incursions into Amarr space! How cool would it be if you could assist the incursion force in taking control of the target space? Hell, make the actual inursion itself player driven! If enough militia frequent a particular claimable system, give them the ability to start influencing this system's infrastructure.
And on the topic of infrastructure and prescence, what if you could turn lowsec into hisec and vice versa (with some limits) once enough militia frequented it?
Since FW is up for a complete redoing, it's practically a blank slate.
Also, <3 |
Johnny Punisher
Wolfsbrigade
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:09:00 -
[256] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Removal of FW NPC from high sec will lead to gay high sec RR docking games at mission and market hubs. \o/
All the veteran players will stay in low sec and not bother with them, younger players without alts will be griefed endlessly.
^^ This.
Also it would move people out of lowsec and lowsec is already empty! Horrible idea imo.
And pvp in highsec is pain in the ass, damn complicated keeping track on all the neutrals. At least if you take out the npc navy, make it so that giving neutral-RR to any faction warfare member gives GCC (so if you RR militia ppl in highsec with neutral-RR, you get concorded). Hell, it should be like that even in lowsec... Anyway: it's better to keep the fighting in lowsec.
What you SHOULD fix:
1) pirate frigs not allowed into minor plexes.
2) no standing loss in remote repping friendly militia member who is pirate/gcc
3) make plexes worth doing / dont spawn most of them after dt |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
316
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 00:23:00 -
[257] - Quote
Johnny Punisher wrote: What you SHOULD fix:
1) pirate frigs not allowed into minor plexes.
2) no standing loss in remote repping friendly militia member who is pirate/gcc
3) make plexes worth doing / dont spawn most of them after dt
Thanks Johnny, controversy over higsec NPC's being removed aside, for those at CCP reading this, all three of the fixes you've posted here have been pretty much unopposed by the contributors of this thread and many others. If the devs are looking for concrete fixes that wont rock the boat, you've nailed it.
Its good to see after 13 pages of great ideas (on both sides of certain debates, including the removal of higsec NPC's) there are ideas like these that are clearly floating to the surface and could easily be implemented in time for Winter Expansion.
I also agree with those that say that this is not enough. These would only scratch the surface, and take care of the stuff that those of us involved in FW for years now have been asking for pretty much the whole time. I, and many others, would love to see this not stop here, and move towards a full overhaul of the Faction Warfare system even if it can't be done in time for Winter. |
BoneEater
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 01:39:00 -
[258] - Quote
bump.... blog please? |
Marlakh
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 02:16:00 -
[259] - Quote
Sorry if this has been suggested before, I've not really read this thread fully. But:
When establishments comes fully online, I'd like to be able to wear my uniform around in station that (1) reflects which faction navy I signed up with, and (2) what rank I'm at.
A new uniform reflecting the new rank may be issued each time when you've been promoted. This way, the same design may also be used multiple times with minor variations in each rank.
When a player reaches the highest rank (eg Divine Commodore), a special uniform (like the 12,000 Aurum Field Marshall cloak being sold now in Nex) may be issued, or partially given with Aurum purchase.
I know this suggestion flies in the face of the shift away from Nex clothing and Aurum sales, and Establishments, so this may not even be considered in the near to medium term. Nevertheless I think being able to wear (and show off) our faction uniforms will aid in the RP aspect of FW rewards. When the time is right, I'd love for this to be implemented.
Cheers.
M |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
317
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 05:05:00 -
[260] - Quote
Marlakh wrote:Sorry if this has been suggested before, I've not really read this thread fully. But:
When establishments comes fully online, I'd like to be able to wear my uniform around in station that (1) reflects which faction navy I signed up with, and (2) what rank I'm at.
A new uniform reflecting the new rank may be issued each time when you've been promoted. This way, the same design may also be used multiple times with minor variations in each rank.
When a player reaches the highest rank (eg Divine Commodore), a special uniform (like the 12,000 Aurum Field Marshall cloak being sold now in Nex) may be issued, or partially given with Aurum purchase.
I know this suggestion flies in the face of the shift away from Nex clothing and Aurum sales, and Establishments, so this may not even be considered in the near to medium term. Nevertheless I think being able to wear (and show off) our faction uniforms will aid in the RP aspect of FW rewards. When the time is right, I'd love for this to be implemented.
Cheers.
M
Would be fun, but like you said CCP isn't going to do any more NeX/Incarna stuff any time soon, its permanently on hold. The players have spoken and Hilmar's agreed, no more of that junk for now. It's all spaceship stuff the next few expansions (except for Dust, of course).
Also, they better not do it unless they take care of the ranking system first. The ranks should have something to do with kills, its total bullshit that you get called a general for going out and running a stack of NPC missions. |
|
S810 Jr
Shadows Of The Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 08:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
If CCP really want to remove Navy from high sec then how about only removing them from systems that have a Sansha incursion happening in them. Navy is too busy with Sansha to do anything with Militia pilots if they have to RP it. That would allow Militias to do *yawn* high sec gate camps in set places and maybe get a response fleet to counter. But only as long as the incursion lasted.
Removing Navy from all high sec just sounds dumb from a RP point of view, you'd pull navy back to high sec from low sec and give the Militias the job of doing everything in low sec. |
ArmyOfMe
TEDDYBEARS. Excuses.
33
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 08:49:00 -
[262] - Quote
Remove npc's from high sec, remove docking from stations belonging to factions you are at war with.
AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD REMOVE ECM FROM CALDARI NPC'S
CCP, for the love of god boost the deimos..... |
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 09:23:00 -
[263] - Quote
Keep in Simple
|
Bengal Bob
Royal Order of Security Specialists
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.24 09:44:00 -
[264] - Quote
I guess I called it early, silence from Devs indicates FW "refresh" is removal of npc navies from high sec.
Lol.
Please can someone from CCP that still plays eve try FW and see for themselves - I am talking about the pvp/plexing, not just going "Awesome missions, FW is WIN"
PS: Yesterday was loads of fun Amarr, please keep it coming |
subtle turtle
Wolfsbrigade
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 01:20:00 -
[265] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
Great feedback in this thread. I'm taking a few notes and getting a few ideas.
One thing we might be able to do very easily is remove the faction NPCs, letting you freely travel in other factions space. How would you guys feel about that change? I've always found it a bit sad that we've isolated FW in low-sec when it could be done on a much larger scale.
Hmmmm.. Never thought about that, TBH. My issue is is if this would end up killing low-sec pretty much for good, as there would be no reason to fight there and risk pirate intervention, capital ships, etc.... One idea I had relating to this is that in high sec, NPC standing could really matter related to FW. For example, I am in Amarr Militia. If you remove the NPC intervention, you could make it so if I go into a high sec system with a station owned by a Minimatar loyal corp (Boundless Creations, for example), I would automatically be KOS for any non-FW player in that system with a standing of higher than some set amount (5.0 or so) to that corp. There would no longer be the NPC threat, but there would be an added player threat. There would be a local flag, similar to when a pilot is GCC or a wartarget to signal that I was a valid target. Of course, as soon as a non-FW player would agress the FW interloper, they would become a valid target for return fire. This would provide new PVP opportunity for all players, not just FW members, including a easy introduction to PVP for the high sec missioner. It would also open new and interesting PVP mechanics, like HS gate camps to catch potential interlopers, missioner baiting as FW members could scan out active missioners and bait them into agressing the flashy red ship that just warped into their mission. It would ad an element of surprise and danger, as NPC corp standings aren't readily available, so you wouldn't know if that ship next to you was able to shoot you until the bullets start flying. This also wouldn't minimize low sec, because the mechanics there favor the knowledgeable FW pilot more than the new, risky mechanics of enemy high sec. It would also address the "NPCs shouldn't fight battles between players" issue in a sandbox game like Eve. The real advantage of this is that it would make the ongoing struggle between the 4 factions a MUCH larger part of gameplay for all players in Empire, high or low. It would matter to missioners who they grind for, as that could influence PVP opportunity. |
Lord Meriak
Amarrian Retribution
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 08:49:00 -
[266] - Quote
With useing the incursion system.
Would this work say amarr system 100% to armour as the system became more contested this would lower and become more shield based.
these effects would effect say speed shield armour.
many differant ships needed all way threw make for a changing battlefield.
any more ideas on this.
I know some peeps only fly vega darkes etc but a good way to push out differant ships. |
Wendi Wu
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 13:05:00 -
[267] - Quote
I don't think removing NPC navies is a good idea for three reasons:
GÇó It makes absolutely no sense. It's bad enough that the NPCs let war targets dock in their stations, now they can't even be bothered to patrol their own supposedly-high-security space? GÇó Every griefer, camper and noob-targeter in FW will immediately make a beeline for the opposing side's market hub (Amarr, Jita, Dodixie, Rens) and station camp it 23/7. GÇó FW is brutal enough for newbies already. They need some kind of safe harbour.
Instead i'll repost Hans' very sensible list of suggestions that virtually everyone in FW wants:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:1.) Add rewards to plexing. Make it a desireable activity, with a distinct PvP focus and less NPC shooting and button orbiting. 2.) Fix the spawning of plexes to not only occur at downtime. Make them spawn more often, and round the clock. 3.) Remove pirate ships from any othe plexes that restrict tech 2 ships. 4.) Make docking at an enemy station hazardous to your health - either deny access completely, or if that is too extreme/imbalanced at very least cause gate guns to fire if your enemy has Sov. 5.) Fix GCC/standing for repping friendly militia members. Most of us who PvP to shoot neutrals from time to time, whenever there is "suspected enemy collaboration". 6.) Fix missions so they aren't farmable in bombers.
To which I'd add:
7.) Have friendly militias show up as blue or purple on overview so that we don't get continual friendly fire incidents between Caldari/Amarr and Gallente/Minmatar. 8.) Balance NPCs so that Amarr/Gallente rats are less of a joke compared to Minmatar/Caldari. 9.) Massively increase LP rewards for killing enemy war targets. |
Creat Posudol
True Knights Templar Pegasus Coalition
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 14:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
Rodj Blake wrote:Or, how about allowing all those with a +5 from faction x to shoot all those with a -5 from the same faction no matter where they are?
That would be true faction warfare.
Regarding stations, yes, I agree that if you're hated by a faction then you shouldn't be allowed to dock at their stations. But maybe there could be some benefit for high faction standings as well - maybe free repairs or lower sales taxes if you're in a friendly station.
This would give faction standing some meaning after taking away the navies (great idea as I've stated before). It would also give another advantage to having good standing. Be allowed to shoot those with extremely bad standing The docking thing, logical as it seems, breaks too much. If I'm flying for gallente/minmatar I can't dock at caldari stations? Comes back to the same problem as the current navies: I can not go to Jita without using an alt. The whole point of removing the navies would be to to allow for free movement, right? But this doesn't have to apply to low-sec (especially FW areas), after all that is an entirely different kind of region...
About the removal of the faction navies, I'm against anything that treats Hubs any different from other systems. Those currently have no special treatment in-game, they just happen to be used as hubs by player (and could at least in theory shift to different systems at any time). It should stay that way. If caldari FW members start camping Dodixie I'm sure the Gallente guys can muster up some kind of defense on their home turf? Would be pretty sad if they couldn't....
I'd also love to be able to join FW on a more or less day-by day basis without leaving my corp (because that is just not gonna happen). Eve is about diverse possibilities and not being limited in what you want to do. At least for me it is. If I'm in the mood for some pewpew I can join and do so (including hopefully revamped missions for the militia involving some sort of player-interaction) for a day or two. I'd say some commitment should be required, if I kill someone he probably wants so kill me right back. He should have that opportunity. How about this, anyone can join FW as an individual without leaving his corp, but has to commit for at least 48 hours. He can cancel his "membership" at any time, but it takes 24 hours to be actually out (respecting the initial 48 of course). Also, this should be extended for any aggressive action. If he shoots a FW-Target during that time (i.e. engages in FW), the 24 hours reset. Only if he is the aggressor though, not it he gets shot and just shoots back. This should also extend to supporting other FW members in a logical way (cap/shield/armor transfer, tracking link, ...).
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Removing the stock NPC corp in favor of more of a pseudo- static alliance is a much better way around this, in my opinion - I think forcing players to join a player corp to do Faction Warfare is a great idea. Players corps are much better about monitoring and filtering farmers and spies - the players who sign up for 24th crusade or TLF usually have a crap experience if they stay there - they are simply treated as riffraff anyways by any militia pilot who has been around longer than a few weeks. I think that is a bad idea, it fixes a symptom and not the problem itself. And it has a downside: rather new or just hesitant players might try FW via the NPC corps, getting fresh blood into FW is obviously one of the main objectives of any fixes! The NPC corp can be (and I would expect it to already be) a stepping stone for joining an FW player corp. FW itself needs to be fixed in such a way that it can't be farmed without player-interaction/PVP (sure a mission objective can be achieved without PVP, but it should be the exception and not the norm). I agree that player corps are of course better for FW members in general and I do see the point of spotting spies. Also what's stopping them from creating corps to join FW just to spy? It might make things somewhat better, but it won't really fix anything. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
326
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 15:23:00 -
[269] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote: I'd also love to be able to join FW on a more or less day-by day basis without leaving my corp (because that is just not gonna happen). Eve is about diverse possibilities and not being limited in what you want to do. At least for me it is. If I'm in the mood for some pewpew I can join and do so (including hopefully revamped missions for the militia involving some sort of player-interaction) for a day or two. I'd say some commitment should be required, if I kill someone he probably wants so kill me right back. He should have that opportunity.
Thanks Posudol, you make many great suggestions.
One of the more interesting points you bring up is that we are talking about militas, not military service. The current FW model shares much more in common with military service, than it does mimic the idea of citizen-soldiers taking up arms.
I think that if we are to have citizens engage in FW, and police higsec themselves (as CCP Soundwave suggested) than we simply must implement a mechanic where a broader range of people can engage in militia work without having to permanently enlist in the service of one faction or another.
Standings are the way to do this - your every day mission runner grinding Brutor level 4's is no doubt going to have low Amarr standing, I think its as simply as allowing highsec players to attack each other once you've pushed your standings down far enough. Someone who has been grinding missions for a minnie corp and nuking their amarr standings, should be attackable (like criminals are currently) once they tread into opposing space.
This would create faction warfare outside of lowsec, in a way that is consistent with RP and dovetails the already-in-place system of criminals being targetable by players once they tread into highsec. Also, it helps offset the trade hub camp issue - if I personally were to go to Jita, it means that instead of NPC's harassing me, I'd have every player in system that had high caldari standing on my ass - not just the ones that had signed up for full military service by belonging to a FW corp.
This people-not-in-FW-engaging-in-FW could be supplemented by reinforcing the static wardec scenario we currently enjoy, and eliminate a few of the frustrations - by allowing factions to set factions to blue, we can eliminate a huge amount of cooperative fleet headaches that currently serve as barriers to amarr-caldari cooperation and minni-gallente collaboration. Also, by fixing the GCC for repping militia members problem, we can allow the current FW pilots to engage in pew pew much more often, self-policing the lowsec areas and having more freedom to engage neutral targets (but only when they are suspected enemy collaborators, of course! )
I think all of this may have been what Soundwave was on to with his comments, but maybe he can clarify....everyone's speculating like crazy in the meantime. The question is - Soundwave, do you have the balls to tell the highsec mission runner base they can expect a slew of new, non-voluntary pew pew? Everyone is still crying over the goons and their ice war - I can see removing highsec NPC's and allowing highsec FW as sparking the very same backlash.
Without involving standings and utilizing the general citizens of highsec to engage intruders, the simply removal of NPC's would indeed lead to hub gatecamp station games. And this would discourage anyone from joining FW, if they saw the crap at the stations and decided they wanted nothing to do with that business.
|
Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 16:22:00 -
[270] - Quote
Moving this over to the desired thread as per Spitfire's request.
Completely agreeing with Hans on this, who oddly enough has been a pretty clear voice for the FW community (despite the low numbers post on here). He is doing a great job at voicing well thought out opinions.
As for Wendi's last post, I just want to widdle this down to once again things that are doable and everyone can agree upon
1. Distribute plex spawn throughout the day. This should be easy to fix. I cannot see how using an existing mechanic to replace the current one should take any significant amount of resources. Everyone EVERYONE wants this (except maybe sasawong har har har)
2. Re-balance NPC's. Both missions and plexes. Once again, easy fix. Hell, give everyone missiles, it sure is one hell of a frig deterrent on the Gal/amarr side of things.
3. Pirate ships counting as T2 frigs as far as plexes go. Cmon, Pirate frigs are at the very least on par with T2, they shouldn't be in the minor plexes. On the same hand (which hasn't been emphasized), Pirate cruisers should also be restricted to majors for the same comparison with HAC's.
On a deadline, these should be EASY to accomplish. Although there are six things, maybe some of the others are too far reaching for the upcoming expansion (including meaningful sov, redistribution of LP rewards, and changing the act of plexing). Yes, we want these looked at, but personally I would rather see these get waited on and get some hotfixes on the above three problems.
As far as friendly cal/amarr and gal/matar, I stand by my analysis that people are going to regret this and noobies are going to be extremely frustrated. The reason you don't shoot your own militia is because of the standing hit, which doesn't and shouldn't exist cross militia.
Just to reiterate: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CCP FIX THESE THREE PROBLEMS THAT ARE PISSING OFF EVERYONE. |
|
|
|
|
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 |