| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
21
   |
Posted - 2011.10.18 04:42:00 -
[151] - Quote
Ohhhh man... going one step further, ships could have a point value associated with them, and the gate could track the total value entered by each militia. Just like the tournament. That would be AWSOME.
Again, I envision this as being one of many types of plexes available to players to mess around with, not how all plexes should work. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
61
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 13:49:00 -
[152] - Quote
Damassys Kadesh wrote:Ohhhh man... going one step further, ships could have a point value associated with them, and the gate could track the total value entered by each militia. Just like the tournament. That would be AWSOME.
Again, I envision this as being one of many types of plexes available to players to mess around with, not how all plexes should work.
If you did this you would want to do what hirana suggested and not allow people to even warp to the plex unless they could enter it. Otherwise people would camp the gate.
But again I think you are being concerned about a fairly high class problem. The problem right now is plexes are sitting around everywhere and no one wants to run them. This problem you are solving assumes that too many people will be rushing into the plexes.
I think the side with the bigger numbers should just be able to start winning systems but once they take over a certain percent of systems the other side can just send larger ships into smaller plexes. So you would get fights like 2 cruisers versus 6 destroyers and 3 frigates. Or 6 cruisers versus a BS or a 2 BCs.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
85
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 14:02:00 -
[153] - Quote
FW Corps just got an interesting twist with the Player Owned Customs Offices...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=205799#post205799
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Insane Randomness
Perkone
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 18:28:00 -
[154] - Quote
zero2espect wrote:no more FW missions. to earn LP and other goodies you have to close plexes or kill targets. that will cut 50% of the people who are only in FW for the easy mission rewards down to those who really just want to be there. killing targets should count towards sovreignty somehow. nothing more frustrating than killing 127 enemy ships, no losses and then knowing that it doesn't mean anything - compared to a guy in a single frig capping some plexes.
the other thing is that held space has to mean something. stuff that makes a difference. 50% saving on pos fuel requirements, better rats, better static mission lootz, something combat related - e.g. a tech 2 interdictor bubble with only 5km radius that can be used in low sec only by the militia "owning" the system. racial bonus to the militia based ships in home systems. something. cheaper repairs. more ore output from belts (which brings miners, which brings pirates, which makes more people flying in closer systems and more targets).
I believe that in the Empyrean Age novel, the Gallente had a surveillance system for their borders with the Caldari named Tripwire, which they relied on as an early warning device. Something that has never been seen or heard of in our current game, and never mentioned since then. Perhaps these ssytems could have increase intel gathering power as you go inwards towards the high sec borders. Doing so would mean you could theoretically bait ships inwards towards your own boarders in order to gather intel on them. Or perhaps a defense grid or whatever, it doesn't necessarily have to be a boost or nerf to your effective power, but more an assist.
Quote:The other thing that really sucks is that the militia is fairly fragmented - and then a big alliance can just come into the area and completely squash all faction warfare activity. the PL/amamake situation is just a joke. i don't hate on PL for being here, the mechanics dictate that they can go wherever they want - but having arguably the biggest, baddest alliance in the game squatting right in the middle of fast and loose faction warfare is just not the best for us - bringing capitals to frigate fights and tech3 blobs against cruisers and battlecruisers just takes the fun outa logging in.
THIS. This needs to be fixed before anything else. Perhaps like limiting capital ships to engaging in only the larger fleet fights, or perhaps only allowing corporations to join FW. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 19:10:00 -
[155] - Quote
Insane Randomness wrote:THIS. This needs to be fixed before anything else. Perhaps like limiting capital ships to engaging in only the larger fleet fights, or perhaps only allowing corporations to join FW. If you can't build it in low sec, it should be able to be deployed in low sec. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
61
|
Posted - 2011.10.18 20:19:00 -
[156] - Quote
Wendi Wu wrote:2. Caldari and Amarr militia should show up on overview as friendly to each other. Gallente and Minmatar militia should show up on overview as friendly to each other. At the moment they don't and not a week goes by when we don't have a friendly-fire incident as a result.
This might seem like a minor thing but it would *really* be nice. When you go to the other front for a change of pace it would be nice to know who is in your friendly militia.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sniperdoc
Stargate Kommand
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 16:07:00 -
[157] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:
This goes back to the practical question of.... why?
Why bother going into a plex?
And why bother fighting for it?
and
Cearain wrote:
Why should you do faction war?
Those questions basically bring to the forefront why FW is broken and Cearain answered in part what it needs.
Cearain wrote:
So ccp needs to make faction war fun, challenging, and/or make it so being good at faction war will be deemed meritorious by the community.
I'll reiterate again... just so the dev's see it over and over:
WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE FOR BEING IN FACTION WARFARE?!
What happens when you convert a system over to your faction = NOTHING
What effect does owning systems have on a faction = NOTHING
What effect does having rank in your faction's militia have = NOTHING
What effect does killing an enemy faction's militia member have = NOTHING (other than make them buy another ship)
What effect do a faction's systems have on an opposing militia member = NONE, see explanation below
Gallente Federation Navy can BUY ANYTHING in a State Protectorate Station
Gallente Federation Navy can dock all their ships in a State Protectorate Station
Seriously?
Do you see Al Qaida driving onto Ft. Hood, shopping at the Exchange or Commissary, while parking their T-60 tank in that base's Motorpool, and getting repairs from the US Army mechanics??? How the FLIP (had a much better word for it) does that make sense. Oh yeah... don't forget, they get medical care as well (compare that to standard clone purchases). Oh and they get to drive on and off the base however often they want without any restriction even though they shoot our guys right outside the base (station games).
The list really goes on. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO incentive for being in the militia other than farming missions so you can lose more ships or making having some killboard stats. What about restricting Navy ships to militia only? How about making the number of systems owned have an overall effect on the market. Then the militia actually has meaning to the general eve population that lives in Empire space.
Just some thoughts. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.19 16:45:00 -
[158] - Quote
Regarding incentives for losses and gains and plexing in general.
Assuming that there are increased rewards for PVP kills and flipping systems then perhaps the pay outs should be relative to the success of the faction.
Controversially I would perhaps propose a tax on High sec based corps based in that factionGÇÖs space. This tax only exists where there is a significant imbalance in the systems held. The worse your faction is doing the higher the tax the more ISK is goes to that government.
The pay-out for PVP kills and flipping systems would then be higher when a faction is losing. Seems unfair but it is to create a balance so that everyone does not just jump on the winning side and that perhaps the militia is reinforced when doing badly due to greater incentives.
This would require more than just the swinging of a few systems to trigger and perhaps your own rewards would drop if you faction becomes too dominant.
Any thoughts? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
104
|
Posted - 2011.10.20 14:12:00 -
[159] - Quote
Soundwave responds to the FW thread in General Discussion and wants to see opinions on opening up all faction High Sec to all FW pilots....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=18015
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
21
|
Posted - 2011.10.21 05:24:00 -
[160] - Quote
Nice, I haven't had a chance to review the whole thing, but I see you linked this thread which is great. |
|
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
145
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:49:00 -
[161] - Quote
So, no word from CCP on Faction Warfare changes?
Hahah, man... CCP really knows how to string you along.
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Kuan Yida
Huang Yinglong
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:24:00 -
[162] - Quote
Faction War was briefly on this site: http://www.eveonline.com/en/crucible/features/ yesterday
But it disappeared from the list today :( |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
145
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 21:15:00 -
[163] - Quote
Nice call.
NOSTRO AURUM NON EST AURUM VULGI |
Damassys Kadesh
Eternal Damnation of the Woken Mind
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 19:54:00 -
[164] - Quote
Still no word eh.... first person to hear anything of substance, please post a link here to direct interested parties. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |