|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Konflikt
CCP Engineering Corp
CCP Engineering Alliance
115
   |
Posted - 2012.01.05 11:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.
These include:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
* The New Neocom
* Corporation Locations (Bookmarks) can now be saved directly into the Corporations folder.
When Singularity next starts these will be available to you. Your feedback and bug reports would be invaluable to us. |
|
|
CCP Konflikt
CCP Engineering Corp
CCP Engineering Alliance
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:Quote:* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare. Inevitable I guess. Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind? (Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))
All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.
A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.
Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.
Feel free to ask more. |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
230
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?
A fix for that has just gone in for testing today. |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
chatgris wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Rona Atani wrote:...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)? A fix for that has just gone in for testing today. My hope is the that following question can be answered no: Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc?
My answer is: No
With this change, you will only lose faction standing for (in order of increasing penalty) aggressing, killing and podding members of your own faction.
You WILL receive a sec status penalty for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged)
You WILL inherit GCC for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged)
chatgris wrote:
If not, then read on:
My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)
Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?
Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?
Answers in no particular order:
No
No
No
No
Hopefully that covers it all :) |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
415
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this:
Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
415
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.
Quick update to this: Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug. That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch. Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess. I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other. but carry on...
Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into :)
|
|
|
CCP Optimal
C C P
C C P Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
The weird undock / ships / items buttons behavior(showing up while in space, not working etc.) some of you have mentioned is a defect as you shouldn't be able to move those buttons at all. It has been fixed, but you may have to clear your cache for the fix to kick in. |
|
|
CCP Optimal
C C P
C C P Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Arkady Sadik wrote:I have my "ships" and "items" buttons at the bottom of the menu bar when I log in. But I don't seem to be able to reproduce that when I move them around - and I can't put any other icons at the bottom of the menu bar, either. What's the intended behavior here? :-)
You aren't supposed to be able to move them at all; they are fixed at the bottom as they are scope specific (only available in a station) |
|
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 12:19:00 -
[9] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
...and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you referring to the bug when you jump into a system and half your fleet shows neutral? This gets old quick.
Soundwave is referring to this - assisting an outlaw/criminal in your own faction gives you a faction standings hit. |
|
|
|
| |
|