| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Optimal
C C P
C C P Alliance
40
   |
Posted - 2012.01.06 15:44:00 -
[91] - 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) |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery
Team Liquid
37
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
My idea is to make people fight by linking the occupation system to the isk making system. The incentives should be: "If you want to make more isk, go pvp more."
When accepting a mission from an agent whose system is owned by the enemy militia, you get 10% less LP.
If the mission is completed in a system owned by your militia, you get 10% more LP
|
Koratte
Wolfsbrigade
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:32:00 -
[93] - Quote
Mystical Might wrote:
1.0+ maybe, but not too high.
Most of the militia corps don't actually have that high a standing.
Only the dirty, dirty piwates.
|
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch
Electus Matari
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 16:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Can the stations recognise militia pilots as friendlies and not engage them if they shoot at stuff? :D One of the supposed advantages of belonging to a militia is the support of the Faction, so any corporation (NPC ones) that belongs to a given Faction shouldn't start shooting their militia if they engage a target. Unless that target has a high standing towards the corporation/faction. Think of th station camps! |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 17:27:00 -
[95] - Quote
Silence iKillYouu wrote:Not all alliance's will give a crap about FW
Only RP alliances who will be fun to kill lots.
Looking forward to any changes :)
Now we can make our own alliances and compete in alliance comps.
no Autoz aloud tho
Killing RP alliances is nice indeed. But I do think that it's not just going to be RP alliances that will take an interest in FW.
Partaking in alliance competitions would be a plus.
Jack Dant wrote:Questions for all the doomsayers.
AFAIK, there are already unofficial alliances in FW. That is, groups of corps who work together inside the same militia, sharing channels, standings and so on. Why is it bad to let them form a proper alliance inside FW?
Why is it bad to let established RP alliances, who have been taking sides in FW all along, to join FW properly?
What makes you think large sov-holding alliances would be remotely interested in joining FW? What does joining give them that's worth the hassle of fixing their standings?
Yes, there are indeed already groups of players who work as you describe. This started to escape metagaming players using alts in the other milita to spy on the militia channel CCP gives upon joining a militia and has since evolved.
If established RP alliances wanted to get into Faction Warfare directly, they would have done so. As is these entities either influence the playingfield or individual pilots join Faction Warfare corporations for a brief vacation. So, not bad, just redundant and uneccesary.
What makes you think large alliances (wether or not they hold sov is a mute point since that line is arbitrary) wouldn't shift back and forth between the different fronts just because they can? It's the way to manage standings while in FW if you are just in it for a short time.
As is Faction Warfare is pretty much low drama for fast fights in small gangs with periodic large scale battles. Something I know most pilots actually partaking in the War part of Faction Warfare enjoy. Allowing alliances will bring with it entities that love to camp because the mechanics allow killing the enemy without any security standing hit and without gateguns or stationguns intervening. It would allow a host of entities that don't have the balls to go full on pirate to lurk around taking cheap shots at people actually trying to get good fights because they can still get into half of empire space and can simply change sides to mitigate any faction standing penalties. Particularly because the pvp activities carry the lowest faction standing penalties of all the activities in FW. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
733
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 17:38:00 -
[96] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:I doubt that any big alliance want to take free wardec upon them. If they want to blob militia they can do it as well without joining militia.
Also standing requirement for all corporations make it so hard to join, that it is not worth to see all that trouble.
There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Here, finally, we agree on something ;) I personally don't think that we will see FW implode overnight, given the fact that many Alliances won't see benefits outweighing the drawbacks, or may not be able to join even they wanted to. And in the long run, I think Alliances SHOULD be allowed to join FW, with some provisions of course. The more targets the better in the greater scheme of things....arbitrary barriers to entry serve no one.
Jowen Datloran wrote:This is such a bad order of priority.
How will you balance a game play that has been advertized as an introduction for new players into the world of PvP by allowing the wealthiest and experienced entities in EVE to exploit the same mechanics at their leisure?
"Luckily" FW mechanics are still so pointless that one can expect that alliances only will farm the heck out of the LP stores while shooting any idiot believing that their blue color actually mean something.
....yet here is the crux of the problem. It's not what's being changed, its the priority order. The reason I've spoken up so loudly about this isn't because I personally sense a doomsday coming - its that the community has been fairly clear if not on specific proposals, than certainly clear on what the core problems are facing FW. By pumping out the "quick stuff" without listening and responding to the community's greatest concerns, CCP risks alienating customers who care very deeply about the FW system, the FW community, and possibly affecting the spirit of what FW is all about.
If nothing else, CCP at least owes the dedicated pilots who have spent years trying to speak up about FW improvements a confirmation that they've heard the ones who object to this change, understand the risks inherent in allowing more people into a clearly broken system without fixing it first, and are taking steps to minimize harmful effects. Simply ushering this through without at least communicating that they have a master plan here will only exacerbate an already sore sub-community in EvE who has shown far more dedication to the feature than the developers have since its release. |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:01:00 -
[97] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:..There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Which is, if you think about it, a pretty damn good incentive as they have been moaning about their precious sanctum spawn time and what not. Fill up available blue-sea systems with ratters and send remainder to make approx. same ISK (for a week until markets crash) doing FW missions.
By joining militia it makes incursion running much harder, and incursions are much better isk than fw missions and market crash does not affect incursion income much, also alliances do not get much tax income from fw missions but they get a lot from incursions. |
Bad Messenger
draketrain
95
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:10:00 -
[98] - Quote
Morgan North wrote:Can the stations recognise militia pilots as friendlies and not engage them if they shoot at stuff? :D One of the supposed advantages of belonging to a militia is the support of the Faction, so any corporation (NPC ones) that belongs to a given Faction shouldn't start shooting their militia if they engage a target. Unless that target has a high standing towards the corporation/faction. Think of th station camps!
In militia your targets are opposing militia forces , when you shoot those no one cares so sentries on station does not shoot you.
But if you start to shoot innocent civilians who has nothing to do with militia or faction warfare sentries will start to shoot you.
So i do not know what you are proposing there, maybe it was that if you belong to militia you can harass civilians too?
So you want that being in militia is license to pirate on your own faction systems, i doubt that is good idea  |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
734
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:21:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Ciar Meara wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
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 :)
Thanks, Soundwave!! I wrote the post above before I noticed you had chimed in on this thread, I've been answering items in the order I come across them here. I appreciate your personal attention to this feature, and I think you'll be pleased with how having a healthy, dynamic Faction Warfare system compliments the greater fabric of the game when all is said and done, and hopefully it will continue to provide the smaller-scale, gang and sub-cap fleet based PvP gameplay that so many players crave whether they currently participate in FW or not. I promise you the work you're putting in here will pay off.
I still stand by my thoughts that this is a bit premature, that there are genuine risks, and I'm hoping that you've considered them. Maybe your team can clearly see given their set of tools that the standings requirement will ensure there won't be large-scale abuse of the FW system and community. If so, we'd love to know that. I totally understand priority order for things (My RL job involves managing a queue of service requests so I empathize with backlogs and triaging tasks) but a large portion of the FW community remains very apprehensive of Alliance involvement, its a highly controversial issue that is perhaps more divisive than any other. Any reassurance your team can give regarding this specific change will go a long way towards re-establishing a positive relationship with the FW community after years of being "on the rocks".
As to the consequence issue being prioritized over the capture mechanics (Cearain - I know you'll hate me for saying this) I think this is a wise choice. Even if plexes were empty rooms that simply limited ship entry and provided little "arenas" for battles of varying sizes, that serves the EvE community's needs for PvP on that scale. The problem is, of course, that most now don't see the point in bothering when there's a dozen other ways to hurt your enemy far more than changing the name-only occupancy of a system. Currently, even the roleplayers don't care enough about who owns what system to rally big defensives or offensives.
I can't wait to see Faction Warfare return to the function originally intended - new players and veterans alike should be able to hop into their rifters, stabbers, and phoons, find fights every night of the week in multiple warfronts, have choice as to what kind of PvP they want to engage in (What sounds fun tonight? Frigate roam through Bleak lands? or RR BS fleet to defend Auga...) and know that whatever they do actually affects the sandbox. EvE is sold around as being full of that "butterfly effect" but it shouldn't take years for a pilot to feel like they've achieved it.
Convince new players that the rifter piloting they do in their first few weeks matters despite knowing they'll never catch up to vets in skill points and you have a recipe for long-term subscription gold.
Looking forward to summer! Keep up the hard work! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
734
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:38:00 -
[100] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:In militia your targets are opposing militia forces , when you shoot those no one cares so sentries on station does not shoot you. But if you start to shoot innocent civilians who has nothing to do with militia or faction warfare sentries will start to shoot you. So i do not know what you are proposing there, maybe it was that if you belong to militia you can harass civilians too? So you want that being in militia is license to pirate on your own faction systems, i doubt that is good idea
Messenger is spot on here, FW is about fighting militias, not random neutrals.
We have BECOME a group that is often associated with piracy, because the dwindling number of FW pilots has caused a lot of bored militia corps to resort to *ahem* "keeping systems secure from suspected enemy combatants posing as innocents" 
That doesnt mean we should be aided by Concord during these "extracurricular" pew pew encounters.
What SHOULD be implemented (and is a great low-hanging fruit thing to add to a larger package of upgrades) is that the stations should fire upon opposing enemy factions. If the 24th crusade occupies Huola, that station should be firing on minnies loitering outside. This is common sense. It also doesnt punish new players too harshly, z-marks are very easily taught and can be used by any pilots of any skill point level.
It will, however, kill station games and push fighting back out into space where it should be. Just as with the Alliance fix though, the order here is everything: fixing station guns doesnt solve the problem as to why people should fight in the plexes to begin with. If it is implemented before plexing regains its meaningful impact, all it does is arbitrarily reduce where the militias can fight while we wait for real improvements. |
|
|
Deen Wispa
56
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 18:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Deviana Sevidon wrote:CCP, you really hate Gallente do you?
Half of the people playing EVE start Caldari and the number of flying for Caldari is actually higher then other faction. Finding alliances with corps where the majority of players has positive standing to the Gallente side will be much more difficult.
Your allance to FW idea will only make bad things worse. FYI, Gallente FW is stronger than Caldari FW for now.
FTFY :) |
Pierced Brosmen
Priory Of The Lemon
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 19:08:00 -
[102] - Quote
The new NeoCom looks very nice, but I find the lack of ability to pin elements to NeoCom a bit annoying.
If I open the contracts or fleet window, I get the relevant items present in the NeoCom, I can move them around among the other items wich is nice, but kinda loses it's value when the item dissappears the moment you close the window. And no, I don't want to put those in a stack, as I want them to be accessible with one click.
Also, I see pros and cons regarding the the windows minimizing to the windows to the NeoCom. I definately like that it makes it look a lot cleaner, but as a person who have a large ammount of chat channels open, I don't really like that you have to open the chat list to see wich channels that are "blinking"... As a big fan of the concept of giving the players options, I would like to see an option to minimize certain windows to a tab at the bottom of the screen by using a modifier key. Like hitting the minimize icon would minimize to the NeoCom, but if you hold shift while clicking, it would minimize to a tab at the bottom of the screen...
Overall, I look forward to seeing the NeoCom updated. the skill training progression bar is great and it all looks a lot better then the previous SISI test about a year ago. Keep up the good work 
Just my 2 bytes |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 20:31:00 -
[103] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I'm right there with you on lets make FW all about smaller scale, intense PvP. That's been the scene's biggest draw all along - not the consequences of ownership. But the two go hand in hand - no carrots = no fights. ..
The ultimate goal for faction warriors is to win the war. If the mechanic is functioning properly that should be the ultimate carrot. Being able to say we won fw.
Getting isk/lp would be secondary goals used for the purpose of achieving that ultimate goal.
The problem is the community sees how that ultimate goal is achieved and decided it is not worthy of respect. CCP needs to change how the ultimate goal is achieved so that people will value achieving it.
Examples:
Winning the alliance tournament = worthy goal. Alliances will spend isk to try to win it (even if it didn't pay to win)
Winning at ship spinning? not a worthy goal. No one is proud that they did this. Nor should they be.
Winning at faction war? Its closer to winning at ship spinning, than it is to winning an alliance tournament.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
258
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 21:20:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.
Can we confirm which "Standings bug" you are referring to here?
I have a petition about Concord Security Standings not raising properly for killing NPCs together with other players, and I'm not sure if this refers to that or a standings issue in Faction Warfare.
Thanks.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
Tactical Invader Syndicate
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 21:23:00 -
[105] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.
Can we confirm which "Standings bug" you are referring to here? I have a petition about Concord Security Standings not raising properly for killing NPCs together with other players, and I'm not sure if this refers to that or a standings issue in Faction Warfare. Thanks.
The standings bug that is know to be in testing is the RR standing loss bug in FW any other standings bug has not been addressed. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 23:09:00 -
[106] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:What makes you think large alliances (wether or not they hold sov is a mute point since that line is arbitrary) wouldn't shift back and forth between the different fronts just because they can? It's the way to manage standings while in FW if you are just in it for a short time.
That one is easy. Most large alliances have trouble getting members to fly the right fits, or even the right ships. Asking them to get the standings is never going to work.
What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Disdaine
181
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 00:18:00 -
[107] - Quote
Palovana wrote:With the old Neocom panel, brackets and labels would not get hidden under it - they would treat the edge of the Neocom bar as the "hard edge" of the screen. This behavior has been lost and unless Autohide is activated it can be hard to see some brackets. (This is probably the biggest issue).
Gotta be kidding me.
There's a reason I indent all my windows.
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
773
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 03:48:00 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Konflikt wrote:* The New Neocom
<3
|
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 10:52:00 -
[109] - Quote
Some thoughts on this
They should make the stations fire on the enemy now regardless to fix the station games. Weather a FW station always fires on enemy, or only if you hold sec status, or only if it is your station and you hold sec status should be discussed.
Example would be Arzad. Minnies living there, Amarr own the system, so 24th station should engage them.
FW finally able to enter the Alliance Torny??? +1 for this. It was great to see both RvB alliances in the last torny...
Especially if Amarr fights Minnies and Caldari fights the Gallente (yes - this is draw based, but still..).
I also wonder if there should be something done with the warp in to plexes mechanic - hard for someone to get into a plex to fight when defenders are already in there and setup on the warp in location. The fleet that is entering is often slaughtered as the dps is at the front and ECM (and possibly RR) has had a chance to setup sufficently far back from the warp in point to be effective, but not immediately shot.
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!! |
COMM4NDER
Umbrella Holding Inc
Umbrella Chemical Inc
52
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 11:09:00 -
[110] - Quote
Love the new Neocom however some issues persist atm .
Neocom
1, it does not hide enough, it has few pixels on screen when hidden and well its annoying if you ask me and should be hidden until you ask for it. (shown here = http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2137335/EVE-Beta/neocom.png)
2, better indicator of whats a launcher and whats is minimized. right now its hard to spot what is minimized apart from the other icons.
3, undock button missing.
General
Overload feedback is buggy, sometimes it will blink sometimes it wont and is heretic sometimes.
Overload pulse is to fast if you ask me and to small, a slower yet more visible pulse (glow) would make it look better if you ask me.
Tag shortcuts - Make an FC enjoy his position more! |
|
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 11:44:00 -
[111] - Quote
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.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
235
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 12:19:00 -
[112] - 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. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 13:09:00 -
[113] - Quote
The neocom needs to be considered the edge of screen as far as brackets are concerned. |
Destructor1792
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 13:48:00 -
[114] - Quote
The Neocom whilst looking alot more fluid & overall better than the current one, I have a few issues:
- Undock Icon Missing
- Fleet Icon Missing
- Mail Icon Missing
- Sometimes all the icons fail to load so I'm sat staring at a blank Neocom! Other times, Icons seem to appear at random then vanish again. Hovering the mouse over where they should be & it shows they have failed to load.
- Minimising items throws them straight back to the Neocom so after a while you have no idea what's open/closed. Allow us to keep open items minimised to the bottom of the screen if we so choose to.
apart from that, looking good  |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf
Fatal Ascension
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:46:00 -
[115] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: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.
Are you guys aware of the bug I'm referring to?
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Camios
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 18:51:00 -
[116] - Quote
The word the describes the present implementation of the Neocom is "mystery"
As it is configured on my system, it hides a lot of things in his menu, things that should be accessible with a single click... I figured now how to set it so that I like it (it's very powerful) but I don't like these things:
Minimized chat windows should work as usual and not disappear into the neocom.
Some really important chat channels like the fleet channel must be accessible with a click; if I am forced to minimise it I should be able to recover it with a single click. Now if you minimise a chat windoww it goes to hide in the chat icon in the neocom, and you have to do at least 2 clicks to recover it; moreover you don't see chat channels blinking and that's bad.
For some reason, icons disappear from the neocom when some actions are performed (as adding something to a group), and I was able to restore it if I did some other random stuff (like creating another group. Perhaps because the neocom status was refreshed?). In a word, a bit buggy, hope it's fixed, if I can I will submit a bugreport but it seems rather tricky to reproduce even if it happens often. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:53:00 -
[117] - Quote
the new neocom is a buggy mess and if you lose all my window settings again I'm not gonna forgive you katrin
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
322
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 21:15:00 -
[118] - Quote
regarding FW, listen to Hans, you guys have no idea what you're doing. you don't. i'll say nothing more. |
Harleigh
Genbuku.
Nulli Secunda
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 00:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
Can you please include an option for all configurable panels like the new Neocom (awsesome btw) and the quickbar in the market window where we can export / import settings ? This will make life for those of us with multiple toons / computers to migrate settings or sync them between toons. As it is I have to go and copy files / change char id's on the files ever time I make a change.
All we need is exactly what is being done on the overview today for import / export!
Oh and on sissy, my undock icon is missing but the area still works if you hover over it and you get a description popup. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
465
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 04:07:00 -
[120] - Quote
Awesome. you guys brought back the neo neocom, with the same set of features, but vertical! And suddenly everyone likes it! just like i said! Suck it tippia!
anyways I actually would love to be able to put it on the top or bottom of my screen. I'm just used it to it in lots of other mmos. If it's not hard please consider it : )
Anyways I just wanted to say, I basically quit over a combination of the neo neocom being scraped, the old nebula, and FW being basically ignored like it wasn't something cp wanted to say was real.
This post, plus the last expansion, has basically really pushed me to start buying year long subs and getting back into the game again!
keep up the great work.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |