| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Karl Planck
Heretic University
Heretic Nation
123
   |
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:46:00 -
[151] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
You haven't even identified what you want to see changed in fw other than balancing npcs. Do you think that is what will fix it? You may not realize it but ccp has done some balancing already. I hardly think that is much of an issue.
What we need is to identify what CCP should do and then vote for someone who is indicating they will encourage them to do that.
There are a number of things that would HELP fw (it doesn't need fixing imo, but that is my opinion). However, considering the ideas soundwave/csm were shitkicking around it is blatantly obvious that they don't even know how this part of the game/this community of fw'ers works.
There are now a number of distinct threadnaughts about various ways WE think fw could be improved and my point is that they haven't even been looked at. Debating the utopian fw has its place, but i think that everyone involved would appriciate a well thought out change from someone who was experienced in fw, regardless of whether they thought it was the best change or not.
Cearain wrote:
Your idea of just voting for someone who is "our guy" without even establishing what they should do is what the Null sec lemmings do. Sorry I'm not interested.
It is simply obvious that we need direct representation so that WHEN we have their ear (not often) they (soundwave) are actually hearing good advice.
The person i think makes the most sense to rally around is Hans who I think we can all agree has been doing a great job representing the community in the past few months. Of course he is not the only option for a candidate, but it is worth getting people thinking about it now, because we (as a fw forum community) need to start campaigning sooner than later.
|
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
134
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 11:48:00 -
[152] - Quote
FW needs a boost.
Anything will be a step forward
http://fw-frontline.blogspot.com/ |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet
89
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 12:06:00 -
[153] - Quote
Silence iKillYouu wrote:FW needs a boost.
Anything will be a step forward
Tho there is truth in that It's a dangerous mind set to have one bureaucracy is a foot. Its how small towns in the American mid west wound up with busted mono-rails that just went in circles around town.
|
Dirk Smacker
Black Talon Aerospace
Black Watch.
13
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 13:57:00 -
[154] - Quote
chatgris wrote:
This is the anti-blob mechanism of FW once CCP gives some reward for plexing, the distance. Personally, I like it, it gives a chance for people to spread out, for winning to be something other than who wins the fleet fight.
Can you honestly look at the other warzone map and think that is a game mechanic?
It is far more likely they wanted to make the two warzones different and unbalanced to avoid a "manufactured arena" feel to it, and I applaud that line of thinking. All I'm saying is the Cal-Gal warzone is far too vast and will likely be where these new FW mechanics get exploited by alliances if/when they bother to do so.
Currently trying to hoar myself to the sexiest militia corp |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 14:33:00 -
[155] - Quote
Stalking Mantis wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:
I recommend that plexing points could be voting points or something like that, so more you do for your militia more you can affect to leadership.
P.S. After trying out plexing. All those that think plexing is boring or 'PVE' etc. Your doing it wrong! plexing got me more fights/kills and losses than anything else i tried in eve ever.
Yes Victory points should be voting points. I agree. But unless they improve how you get vp I don't think these leaders should have much power at all.
Doing plexing wrong:
IMO plexing is/should be the core of fw and the best way to get good fights in all of eve. That is the only opinion I will give. I will not give any recomendations as to how to fix plexing but just try to give some facts:
Whether you are doing it right or wrong depends on what you are looking for. According to this poll
http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/:
60% of people use plexing sometimes but only to get fights.
15% think plexing is an important part of their game
and
25% never bother.
We can see that the vast majority in fw do not catagorize plexing as an important part of their game. Yet many want to make the consequences of this mechanic more important.
I bet if you asked this same question after fw came out you would get many more people saying yes of course occupancy plexxing is important. The whole point of fw is to gain occupancy for your faction. Well that view changed and then many never did plexes. And now we seem to have a resurgence of plexing "for the fights".
But using plexing "for the fights" is different than plexing in order to do plexes efficiently.
So how do i use plexes to get fights? 1) I go to a very busy wartarget area I fly for amarr so I go to vard - eszure. I find a system with allot of wts in local and ships on dscan and open a plex. When I open it though I usually don't actually run it! I move away from the rat spawns so they don't agro. Plus I don't want to actually run the plex. I just want fights so why would I want to close the plex? That is one way plexing can be used to get fights.
As far as how you do plexing in order to actually cap plexes efficiently. Well doing what ank did is still a very good tactic. People can say what they want about her (carebear, dirty rotten contract breacher etc.) but she was a very efficient plexer and nothing has significantly changed about plexing that would make the methods she described anything but excellent.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
233
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 14:42:00 -
[156] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Cearain wrote:
Your idea of just voting for someone who is "our guy" without even establishing what they should do is what the Null sec lemmings do. Sorry I'm not interested.
It is simply obvious that we need direct representation so that WHEN we have their ear (not often) they (soundwave) are actually hearing good advice. The person i think makes the most sense to rally around is Hans who I think we can all agree has been doing a great job representing the community in the past few months. Of course he is not the only option for a candidate, but it is worth getting people thinking about it now, because we (as a fw forum community) need to start campaigning sooner than later.
Hans is a good pick and anyway he seems to be the only one willing to do the job. I would endorse him except my endorsement might ruin his chances.
I say what i did, because you know, ank used to be the fw csm. Just because someone is running as a fw candidate doesn't mean their voice will utter good advise.
That said ank made allot of good proposals. She was ok for what the csm used to be - people who advocated changes offered by players in the assembly hall. Now the csm is more like players who whisper to ccp in a back room and are covered by nda.
That is why Atticus Bear is dead on to say these minutes give us really very little. The devil is in the details. And these minutes are very vague. What exactly are they proposing?? Who knows.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
PlatinumMercSEAL
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 17:33:00 -
[157] - Quote
I like the idea. I think it would revamp everything in a good way. This might bring more people from high sec to militia. We have a lot of people dreaming of null security space, including myself. This set up would target that group and bring them into the militia. This would turn up the heat. I see more espionage and power hunger. I sure hope this gets in to place soon. I, being a owner of a militia corporation, along with other militia corporation owners, directors, CEOs, and Vice CEOs should like this. This will boost the corporations size and bring in more revenue as a corporation. What CEO would not like that is not out of their mind? Good ideas CCP. Please put them into actions.
President of the Screaming War Eagle Association
Doing business is my game. |
Karl Planck
Heretic University
Heretic Nation
124
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 17:59:00 -
[158] - Quote
PlatinumMercSEAL wrote:I like the idea. I think it would revamp everything in a good way. This might bring more people from high sec to militia. We have a lot of people dreaming of null security space, including myself. This set up would target that group and bring them into the militia. This would turn up the heat. I see more espionage and power hunger. I sure hope this gets in to place soon. I, being a owner of a militia corporation, along with other militia corporation owners, directors, CEOs, and Vice CEOs should like this. This will boost the corporations size and bring in more revenue as a corporation. What CEO would not like that is not out of their mind? Good ideas CCP. Please put them into actions.
trolololol? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=PlatinumMercSEAL
Good for you about being optimistic, but you are not quite of the same community as the rest of us. GO to 0.0, tell us how it was, maybe you will love their game down there.
|
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
80
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 19:32:00 -
[159] - Quote
From Meissa Anunthiels on the CSM minutes;
Quote:To the forum posters who object to the notion of FW being a testbed for 0.0 sov mechanics, itGÇÖs the other way around. Meaningful occupancy mechanics need to be developed for Faction Warfare. And if they work correctly, the same principles should be extended to 0.0. To be clear, the devs (and I) really want Factional Warfare to be meaningful in its own right.
Quote:Using faction warfare as a test-bed for nullsec sov? -> Once more, no, implementing FW occupancy correctly and extending that to 0.0. In this instance, FW mechanics are the important bit.
but then....
Quote:Faction Warfare leaders could be elected, and pvp should play a larger part in FW ranks, as opposed to PvE plexing.
My best analysis is that he wants FW to be meaningful. And like the rest of the CSM, they may understand how FW mechanics needs to be fixed (all you need to do is read forums), but they certainly do not understand the motivation of why people join and stay in FW. There are many reasons and avoiding nullsec drama is one of them.
So in an attempt to fix FW, they give silly solutions like electing leaders which opens up Pandora's Box to being more like nullsec asshatery. What they (Nullsec CSM and CCP) consider meaningful is totally different than what FW pilots consider to be meaningful.
Until their meaning is aligned with our motivations, FW is going to become nullsec
Contrary to popular belief, destruction doesn't occur in one fell swoop. It starts with the slight misstep on a slippery slope. Welcome to that slope.
. |
Dirk Smacker
Black Talon Aerospace
Black Watch.
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 20:07:00 -
[160] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:From Meissa Anunthiels on the CSM minutes; My best analysis is that he wants FW to be meaningful. And like the rest of the CSM, they may understand how FW mechanics needs to be fixed (all you need to do is read forums), but they certainly do not understand the motivation of why people join and stay in FW. There are many reasons and avoiding nullsec drama is one of them.
If one of the main drivers for those who stay in FW is to avoid null sec drama, then drama seems to be winning. Nul sec drama affects the willing participating leaderships the most, and there can be big repercussions for those who live there. From what they have floated, I fail to see what kind of collateral damage militia regulars would face that would even come close to an industrial corp losing alliance sov.
As you stated, there are many reasons to be in FW and I don't see how providing something more meaningful to fight over will hurt the current motivations. You can always opt out of any kind of election or capture mechanic and keep on shooting war targets.
Currently trying to hoar myself to the sexiest militia corp |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
235
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 20:51:00 -
[161] - Quote
PlatinumMercSEAL wrote:I like the idea. I think it would revamp everything in a good way. This might bring more people from high sec to militia. We have a lot of people dreaming of null security space, including myself. This set up would target that group and bring them into the militia.....
Ok ignore the trolls. If you want to go to null sec go to null sec. This is a game where you are immortal. There is no reason to delay pursuing your dreams.
Thinking that fw is a good stepping stone to null sec is very wrong.
The large alliances are much more new player friendly than fw. They will tell you how to fit your ships and exactly what to do. You do not need to be good at pvp to do the large fleet blob warfare they do. Just know the alphabet so you can follow along as the primaries are called. Even if you don't know the alphabet you can click on "name" in your overview and just start shooting the top one.
On the other hand if you pvp in fw your skills or lack of them will be much more important.
If on the other hand you dream of learning and getting good at small scale pvp, then join fw. But don't join faction war thinking you are in anyway getting closer to your null sec dreams.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 21:19:00 -
[162] - Quote
Dirk Smacker wrote:Deen Wispa wrote:From Meissa Anunthiels on the CSM minutes; My best analysis is that he wants FW to be meaningful. And like the rest of the CSM, they may understand how FW mechanics needs to be fixed (all you need to do is read forums), but they certainly do not understand the motivation of why people join and stay in FW. There are many reasons and avoiding nullsec drama is one of them. If one of the main drivers for those who stay in FW is to avoid null sec drama, then drama seems to be winning. Nul sec drama affects the willing participating leaderships the most, and there can be big repercussions for those who live there. From what they have floated, I fail to see what kind of collateral damage militia regulars would face that would even come close to an industrial corp losing alliance sov. As you stated, there are many reasons to be in FW and I don't see how providing something more meaningful to fight over will hurt the current motivations. You can always opt out of any kind of election or capture mechanic and keep on shooting war targets.
Another 0.0 characteristics that FW would like to avoid:
Since there's relatively safe access to isk generating activities, a sizable chunk of the large alliances tend to stagnate in their PvP activities, except when they/leadership decides to expand or to protect their assets. One of the major consequences is that PvP tends to be less persistent (as a whole), and is concentrated in less frequent large fleet battles. Even though FW has relatively PvP light missions, these missions are still higher risk than the typical isk generating activities found in 0.0. I believe the core players in FW wants to keep PvP as the centerpiece with high incidences of skirmish/small fleet activity, with few (if any) large scale fleet battles with 500+ players.
ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
800
|
Posted - 2012.01.20 22:56:00 -
[163] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Hans is a good pick and anyway he seems to be the only one willing to do the job. I would endorse him except my endorsement might ruin his chances.
Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow...
Mfume Apocal wrote:
if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.
What in the world does THAT mean??
FW interests and nullsec interests are in NO WAY incompatible. If you've ever read any of my other posts, you would know that I have been an outspoken supporter of giving development attention to the nullsec soverignty system, which is as broken as the FW system, and has the same stagnating influence on activity that leads to boredom. Some of us just want to make the game a better game - and that includes groups that live in all three areas of space. They are not mutually exclusive.
The whole political process and debate has been plagued for years with this kind of mindset - that my people are inherently opposed to your people, and that we need one of my guys to have a seat so that he can meet our interests (whichever side you're on).
That is a horrible way to look at the CSM. The bottom line is, most of us that want FW changed for the better want nullsec changed for the better as well. Same with highsec. Just because you vote for someone who lives in one area of space does not mean they can't advocate positive change in another area of space.
The FW crowd simply doesnt want to be merged with nullsec gameplay - that does not mean that a FW candidate would interject and impose their way of life onto nullsec, threatening nullsec interests. The relationship can be cooperative - so that each area of space is developed according to those who like to live there - instead of a superiority match where the winner dictates the gameplay for all of EvE.
What is ******** about that? |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
236
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 00:01:00 -
[164] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is a good pick and anyway he seems to be the only one willing to do the job. I would endorse him except my endorsement might ruin his chances.
Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow...
I said that tongue in cheek, because the gang of 4 were giving me a hard time lately the thread. There isn't any real animosity between the handful of us who have been arguing about fw for years.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
802
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 00:05:00 -
[165] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote:
Hans is a good pick and anyway he seems to be the only one willing to do the job. I would endorse him except my endorsement might ruin his chances.
Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow... I said that tongue in cheek, because the gang of 4 were giving me a hard time lately the thread. There isn't any real animosity between the handful of us who have been arguing about fw for years.
Hahaha OK, just checking. |
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 00:33:00 -
[166] - Quote
Galdornae for CSM
http://fw-frontline.blogspot.com/ |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
82
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 00:59:00 -
[167] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:
if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.
I don't understand this sort of zero-sum mentality that people like Mitanni and other people take. Eg; In order for nullsec to win, FW,hisec, or WH has to lose. That's a mindset based on scarcity and not abundance. There's more than enough in the pie for all of us. And no, I don't think I'm being naive.
Any simpleton or a r etard (or lawyer in this case) can sit there and take an either/or approach. Eg; "Yeah, screw you. You're either with us (nullsec) or against us."
But someone who is educated and with good critical thinking skills can avoid the either/or mindset and choose to see the entire spectrum of colors as opposed to just seeing black and white. Eg, "FW, like all other parts of space is part of a healthy eco system that makes New Eden a vibrant place to live. Let's find a way to work together"
PS. I know this is an MMO full of degenerates and kids running amok, but I'd like to think there are enlightened men who are capable of good critical thinking skills 
. |
Beta Miner
Perkone
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 03:01:00 -
[168] - Quote
The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.
Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.
Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
127
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 03:20:00 -
[169] - Quote
Beta Miner wrote:The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.
Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.
Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done.
No one in FW wants Empire + pve,
wait sry.. NO one ACTIVE wants that.
99% want fun. Null sec is not that, if it was we would be thier. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
803
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 03:25:00 -
[170] - Quote
Beta Miner wrote:The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.
Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.
Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done.
This deserves some major clarification, and fast. First of all, CCP is NOT putting Faction Warfare in the icebox - read the latest Dev Blog. They are most certainly moving forward with Faction Warfare improvements. The problem is that they are not listening to the community in the process, and the vision proposed by the CSM at the recent summit did NOT take into consideration the community's concerns that were shared with them.
There is in no way a split between those who want "nullsec lite" and those who want "Empire PVE +".
The truth is, NEITHER of those describe what FW pilots really want. The miltia pilots have stuck around for three years not because we enjoy missions (they suck, and are easily farmed) or nullsec alliance infrastructure headaches (a large amount of FW are nullsec refugees that came here for the politics-free PvP). We just want to get out and fight everyday. Anything that stands in the way of that we want minimized, whether its crappily designed PvE, or forced political organization.
Faction Warfare was a system designed around encouraging small-scale, frequent, casual PvP. The PvE that it includes was designed to bait PvP encounters, NOT to be all that engaging itself. The problems lie in how well these PvE structures actually encourage the PvP they were designed. They just don't do a very good job at what they were intended to do.
The way to fix Faction Warfare is to stick to its orginal intent - providing frequent, hardcore, abundant, and concentrated PvP so pilots can log in, find fights, and have fun without having to grind missions, or wait for a CTA or the lifting of a non-aggression pact.
The community has consistently sent this message, loud and clear, the only thing you see debated on is exactly how to tweak those mechanics. But saying that the militias are split between those who want nullsec, or those who want Empire PvE, doesnt even begin to describe why were here and why we've engaged in a "dead" feature year after year after year.
EDIT: Thanks, sYnc Vir!! I should have just saved everyone the hassle of my usual walls 'o text, because you nailed it. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin.
Black Legion.
275
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 05:06:00 -
[171] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Mfume Apocal wrote:
if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.
What in the world does THAT mean??
It means that I voted for candidates who were pretty much 100% nullsec focused. |
rightuos
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 06:11:00 -
[172] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:
It means that I voted for candidates who were pretty much 100% nullsec focused.
so you voted with a bias
why are you in a FW thread? |
Mfume Apocal
Origin.
Black Legion.
275
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 06:17:00 -
[173] - Quote
rightuos wrote:so you voted with a bias
why are you in a FW thread?
someone linked it for tear extraction |
rightuos
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 06:23:00 -
[174] - Quote
want some visene?
|
Silence iKillYouu
The Innocent Criminals
135
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 07:37:00 -
[175] - Quote
Silence iKillYouu wrote:Galdornae for CSM
http://fw-frontline.blogspot.com/ |
I Legionnaire
State Protectorate
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 08:06:00 -
[176] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[quote=Beta Miner]
The way to fix Faction Warfare is to stick to its orginal intent - providing frequent, hardcore, abundant, and concentrated PvP so pilots can log in, find fights, and have fun without having to grind missions, or wait for a CTA or the lifting of a non-aggression pact.
QFT
I'm disconcerted with the CSM's view of FW as a guinea pig for 0.0 sov warfare rather than as a separate entity entirely. The only change I'd really like to see is disallowing militia members from docking in the opposing militia's stations.
|
Ambo
I've Got Nothing
22
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 10:08:00 -
[177] - Quote
Please do not make FW 'nullsec lite'.
Politics/drama is not what I'm after and I certainly don't want to be a tested for mechanics before they get introduced to 0.0.
Also, as other posters have said, the viability of most ship types within FW is one of the key draws for many. Please don't break that. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
128
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 12:43:00 -
[178] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:rightuos wrote:so you voted with a bias
why are you in a FW thread? someone linked it for tear extraction
How empty your life must be |
Dirk Smacker
Black Talon Aerospace
Black Watch.
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 14:16:00 -
[179] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:
No one in FW wants Empire + pve,
wait sry.. NO one ACTIVE wants that.
99% want fun. Null sec is not that, if it was we would be thier.
I remember having many, many conversations in militia back when Incursions came out about a CCP quote saying how they want to see where they could apply the new things they developed for it and FW seemed like an obvious choice. The overwhelming majority thought a scaled down version for FW would be a great addition.
So yeah, maybe those who are inactive need something better to fight over than a permanent wardec to stay active.
Currently trying to hoar myself to the sexiest militia corp |
Dirk Smacker
Black Talon Aerospace
Black Watch.
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 14:33:00 -
[180] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The community has consistently sent this message, loud and clear, the only thing you see debated on is exactly how to tweak those mechanics. But saying that the militias are split between those who want nullsec, or those who want Empire PvE, doesnt even begin to describe why were here and why we've engaged in a "dead" feature year after year after year.
Just curious here, what could they add or change that wouldn't resemble a nul sec or PvE feature?
The only thing I could think of would be battlefield complexes that appear in the waarzone every so often. Only warp-in is to a friendly npc fleet that requests a specific ship size. Have objectives to fight over (like a series of starbases) that give out vp as a reward and cap the amount you can get per day to prevent exploit farming.
I
Currently trying to hoar myself to the sexiest militia corp |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |