EVE Search - The Federation vs The Amarr Empire

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Warfare & Tactics

The Federation vs The Amarr Empire

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 00:45:00 - [1] - Quote Cearain wrote: So you don't think winning the occupancy war should be a primary content driver. Ok fine. We already won.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 01:10:00 - [2] - Quote Cearain wrote: Well IMO occupancy is what we are fighting for. We?
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 01:17:00 - [3] - Quote Cearain wrote: X Gallentius wrote: Cearain wrote: So you don't think winning the occupancy war should be a primary content driver. Ok fine. We already won. The Caldari already won. You didn't.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 07:32:00 - [4] - Quote Dan Carter Murray wrote: Deen Wispa wrote: Get those station spinners out of Egg and get DCM spewing his usual ******** smack up here. JUSTK will pay the JF bill for you guys to move to Heyd :) I wanna see what the "best of Amarr" has to offer. Let's do this compliments of ::ushrakong:: https://i.imgur.com/5eJ5y68.png We're not paying your JF bill. If you want our JF pilot to move your stuff then put up a courier contract with no collateral.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 07:34:00 - [5] - Quote Bad Messenger wrote: So no, there is no reason to fight for any system, no matter what you think reason is. Something is/is not important because you decide it is or isn't. Only YOU can provide motivation. CCP can only provide the environment.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 14:03:00 - [6] - Quote Cearain wrote: Controlling your "home system" is what its all about huh? You can lose the other 99 systems but if they can't take this one then you are "winning." Yeah pretty much, but without the snarky "quotes" and the fact that there are 101 total systems (not 100). Honestly, I didn't know that it was your job to decide my victory conditions in a sandbox game. BTW, my side has already "won" FW once by your victory conditions - even though our self-defined victory condition was different (Our victory condition was to get a medal from CCP and high five from CCP Fozzie).
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2183	Posted - 2014.05.02 14:07:00 - [7] - Quote double post, please delete
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2184	Posted - 2014.05.02 16:34:00 - [8] - Quote Crosi Wesdo wrote: Cearain wrote: Lots You goal is not a good one, nor is it healthy for FW or EVE. I would say his STATED goal (total domination of the warzone) is a great driver for FW. The only problem is that he has never acted on his goal. He expects others to do the heavy lifting for him. His real goal is to have 1v1's in backwater systems - a thing you can get anyways without any changes in FW.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2184	Posted - 2014.05.02 20:01:00 - [9] - Quote Cearain wrote: You make it sound like I am in favor of station lockouts. I am not. I want the losing side to be able to continuously put up a fight. And I am against mechanics that prevent that. The losing side can always put up a fight. What you are really saying is "I want the losing side to be able to go afk and not bother defending when the other side attacks."
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2188	Posted - 2014.05.04 13:57:00 - [10] - Quote Merdaneth wrote: This is why I suggested to make warzone control and LP payout depend on the number of days that one side holds a particular system. The longer the system is held, the higher payouts become. Systems that go back and forth then gain only few rewards. In that way the rewards reflect the reality. Not a bad idea. However, might lead to a stable war front as farmers will pile on and keep the winners at the top.

X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2190	Posted - 2014.05.05 16:20:00 - [11] - Quote o Lack of docking restrictions is like playing basketball where defense is optional. o The "backwater systems" in FW are like the warm up area on the other court. Complaining that leisurely shooting the ball against an imaginary opponent is not exciting as playing in a real game, and then not wanting to play on the real court (where the opposing FW players live) is a bit weird. o FW low sec is a haven for solo and small gang pvp. Check the killboards. Compare it to any other low sec in the game - or even null sec. Only Barlequet when BNI was living there could compete with FW space in terms of pvp. o There are definitely enough pvp'ers to police the entire warzone. They don't do it because it's boring. People who like to pvp go to the areas where they know they're going to get a fight. They don't go to High Sec Unour Constellation in Placid to look for a fight, and they don't complain that they can't find one when they do. They're smarter than that.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2190	Posted - 2014.05.05 16:57:00 - [12] - Quote Cearain wrote: Unless its fun to fight for those plexes. You know it's a game. Negative consequences just make you do things like have an alt account that sits in a stabbed ship to deplex your space. If you don't have the biggest blob (or have no interest in having a stabbed alt deplex) then you will just dock outside low sec space. This just means you will waste more time reshipping. Yes, you have options if you don't want to play real FW. Use them. Put up a POS if you don't want to waste time reshipping. Be a pirate outside of FW. Almost all of the hot spots in FW are within 1-3 jumps from non-FW space. The benefit of station lockouts (forcing the other side to actually defend) vastly outweigh your inability to put up a POS or make 1-3 jumps every time you lose a ship. Cearain wrote: Yes because small scale pvp is just a warm up for blobbery. That's a big step there. There's plenty of small scale pvp in home systems throughout the warzone. Cearain wrote: Just because there is more small scale pvp in faction war than there is in other areas of eve doesn't mean there is enough. EVE in general needs more small scale pvp opportunities. Like I said eve is great, but it can be quite boring when you are wasting time looking for fights. IMO FW should be nonstop fighting. It already is nonstop fighting - if that's what you want. If you want nonstop fighting you go to the hotspots on the map. We've gone over this point for the past two years. I can easily find and get fights almost any time I want. Not a problem, and not a problem for anybody in FW low sec. No, it's not non-stop fighting in every single system - that's not how it works anywhere. Cearain wrote: X Gallentius wrote: o There are definitely enough pvp'ers to police the entire warzone. They don't do it because it's boring. People who like to pvp go to the areas where they know they're going to get a fight. They don't go to High Sec Unour Constellation in Placid to look for a fight, and they don't complain that they can't find one when they do. They're smarter than that. What does high sec have to do with anything? Yes its boring because the current mechanics make it efficient to hide and seek plex. If the mechanics made it more efficient to win occupancy by pvp it wouldn't be so boring. No, it's boring because nobody who wants NONSTOP pvp is out there. They aren't in lightly populated high sec areas either. If you run the farmers out of lightly populated systems, then you'll be left with nobody out there because people who want to pvp are somewhere else looking for a real fight. Do I want the farmers run out? Heck yeah, but it's not going to lead to more pvp in those areas.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2193	Posted - 2014.05.05 20:46:00 - [13] - Quote Cearain wrote: stuff... Deen is looking for different types of fights than you. You want quick 1v1 (or 1v2, 2v1, etc...) fights in plexes - these I can personally get within 10 minutes of logging in - proven repeatedly over a year ago. While you were ranting about not being able to do so, I was documenting case after case of doing just that (in Fliet where WTs were very active). Deen wants big cruiser level or higher fights. 50 on 50 brawls.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2197	Posted - 2014.05.07 15:13:00 - [14] - Quote RavenNyx wrote: Cearain wrote: [...] Yes because small scale pvp is just a warm up for blobbery. [...] Not in my perspective. I might be doing it wrong, but small-scale, especially in FW areas, to me is closer to a FPS. Instant action and gratification, if you actively seek it. To blob requires a big-ish group of "friends" online, and time. If you'd like fun here and now, that's two things you rarely have available. You should be warned. Cearain will get upset if you call FW "instant action." He gets upset when somebody says that it is extremely easy to "get action within 10 minutes." Just think what "instant action" will do to his psyche.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos 2197	Posted - 2014.05.07 15:17:00 - [15] - Quote Cearain wrote: X Gallentius wrote: Deen is looking for different types of fights than you. ... Deen wants big cruiser level or higher fights. 50 on 50 brawls. If you want to know know Deen actually said you can find it in this very thread: Deen Wispa wrote: We're no where near the numbers you think especially in the age of attrition warfare where some people can't get out of a meta fit frigate. Most of us are scattered across numerous home systems and a 40 man fleet isn't something we're capable of. I'd say 10-20 hac fleet is doable. 15-30 t1 cruisers is doable on weekends. So what exactly is different from what I stated?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.