EVE Search - On the upcoming expansion, the "Empyrian Age"

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

On the upcoming expansion, the "Empyrian Age"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:06:00 - [1] Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 26/04/2008 13:07:02 To begin with, let me bring you all up-to-date on what I'm going to be talking about. On Thursday the 24th, one of mmorpg.com's reporters at the NY ComicCon got a preview of EVE's upcoming expansion. Their preview of things to come, Faction Warfare. TLDR, you say? Let me summarize it for you in bullet points. -The four empires will break the uneasy peace and go to war. -Players will be able to sign up for one side or another. -You run missions for them, gaining more standings in the process. -Sign up individually or as a corporation. -Fight against people your faction is at war against. -You get to attack structures if you don't want to fight in the war. -Systems will change hands based on player success or failure. Now that you know what's going on, let me bring you up to speed on something else. When you order the new EVE 2D Strategic Maps made by Serenity Steele, it appears there are new systems being added to the cluster. The first instinct I think a lot of us have is that its going to be new 0.0 regions, but what if its not? Rather, what if they are systems added to empire. Its not unprecedented. If you remember the Dragon expansion around the time between RMR and Kali, there were systems added to Tranquility that were supposed to only be added to Serenity (the Chinese server). What if these are the ones referred to in the interview, the ones where sovereignty will change depending on the outcomes of the players? ôSo what?ö, you say. Let me present to you what it seems Faction Warfare (FW) is going to be like. Essentially, its going to be a system where you go to one side, sign up for ôkill missionsö against the enemy or their structures, and go off to these ôcontested regionsö and fight people for rewards. In the process, you gain ôreputationö with your faction; doesn't this all sound familiar, like you've heard it before? Well, you have. This is going to be EVE's version of battlegrounds. Why is this a bad thing, you ask? It trivializes FW. It really does. For those of you who have delved into the EVE backstory at all, compare the bombardment of Caldari Prime with what this system would give us. Fleets hitting planets from orbit and duking it out in space, versus a few carebears in T1 frigates going at it; granted, there are some organizations that may put together a decent showing, specifically CVA for the Amarrians and 4th District for the Caldari. But, is this going to be the average? Unlikely, and in that fashion, it is not even going to come close to what is supposed to be the ôepicö feeling you get when discussing the possibility of war between the empires of EVE. Despite its name, it seems possible you might never see empire fleets, or their leaders, but there is one thing you'll apparently get the pleasure of shooting, their structures. What structures you ask? POS. Yes, its likely going to be POS, one of the most annoying and pain-in-the-ass game mechanics in EVE looks to be slated in some form for FW. Supporting evidence of this has happened in the RP arena recently, a conflict between the Defiants, a Minmatar rebel organization, and the Amarrian's 9th Fleet, where players could fight with one side or the other. They fought their enemies, as well as their structures. Example. Not only does it look like FW going to be based around mission-running, but shooting POS structures to determine sovereignty in systems that are looking to be added solely for the purposing of flexible ownership. I ask you, the player, the developer, everyone with a vested interest in this game, is this what we really want something we've been waiting for so long to end up as? Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:06:00 - [2] If its the CCP I've come to know, I have a feeling I know the answer. I dare you all, do something that will reshape this game as we know it, rather than sending us to some pointless conflict in space created just to keep us occupied. Make this war mean something, because, as it stands right now, this is controlled combat, where we are getting to play with the Prime Fiction but not change it, denying the players who might actually care about a goal such as conquest the ability to see efforts through to the end. Let me wrap this up with a paraphrasing of El Yatta from Scrapheap Challenge, who sums it up quite nicely. ôWhen the first draft of FW was announced, it was going to be based on standings, where you were going to leave your current corp and alliance and join a new one that would be perma-deced against its enemy's one. Then, the devs working on it said, ôhey, that idea actually sucks so we're going to wait and do it right, because we've got a great idea for how it should workö. Now, they announce that this great idea they have is... missions. Standings. Opt-in Red vs. Blue.ö Is it possible that I'm just overreacting, you say, that this is all hype? Hopefully. I really don't want this system that I've laid out above to come true, or else its going to be a bad thing for EVE in my opinion - I'd rather instead be pleasantly surprised than unexpectedly disappointed. CCP, please re-think this before you put too much time into it. Sak Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Illwill Bill Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:23:00 - [3] What I find to be worrying, is that CCP is keeping so quiet about it. Compared to when previous expansions were released, they are keeping awfully quiet about new features. ____________________ Honk if you think that I'm a n00b Lance fighter > Honk.
Indigo Johnson Minmatar	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:28:00 - [4] As said, what Factioanl Warfare should be No holds barred Everyone opts in, there is no "on the fence", if you play eve you are part of the conflict Every system, bar a core group of systems, has the potential to be swung to an opposing side. The process by which this happens could be a number of ways to many to list in this post. Mission running should not determing factional warfare, player v player kills should trump mission contributions to system changes Will this be it, probably not, will give CCP benefit of the doubt and see if, on release, it isn't just a huge clone of WoW BGs. NPC grind for faction = boring repetitive drivel imo, hope thats not the corner stone of factional warfare.
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:37:00 - [5] Sakura, First off none of us know the detail of FW, so how can you start complaining about it? You dont know it will involve POS warfare, you dont know how much player interaction will occur. Newbs in T1 ships? Insignificant fleets? How can you say with any degree of certainty that this is what will happen? I think factional warfare will actract a LOT of players - those who dont want the epeen forum waring of alliance 0.0 space, the 'elitist' attitude that dominates that aspect of the game but do want easily accesible fun PVP over territorial control. Sure its .0 warfare 'lite': but thats how youll encourage players to get into that aspect of the game. C. A new look at Local - IDEA
Furb Killer The Peacekeeper Core	Posted - 2008.04.26 14:07:00 - [6] Quote: versus a few carebears in T1 frigates going at it Carebears have habbit of flying battleships, not t1 frigates. So this is one big whine about faction warfare, because you think it will suck. But it doesnt matter what CCP would add, you would think it would suck anyway. There is basicly no information available about how FW will be done. I suppose at least you will get pvp, and not pve like you got with 7th fleet. Just make my day and STFU till you got a reason to whine.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.04.26 14:15:00 - [7] Warning: Unrealistic expectations often lead to disappointment. Sorry. Perhaps I'm just too much of a cynic, but I've never understood the excitement around factional warfare. I mean, they aren't going to throw market stability into a chaotic tailspin over night. That's just not CCP's style. Baby steps and all. They aren't going to force anyone to pvp, otherwise they'd be more attentive to their war dec mechanics and not sacrifice it to NPC corp safety loopholes. Standings. Missions. Opt-in Red-v-Blue. OF COURSE that's what it will be. What else could it be? Perhaps you should describe more of what your vision is/was. At least then we could discuss the feasibility of it. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Michelle Raynor Caldari Raynor Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.04.26 14:20:00 - [8] Originally by: Illwill Bill What I find to be worrying, is that CCP is keeping so quiet about it. Compared to when previous expansions were released, they are keeping awfully quiet about new features. well, we prolly find most of the new stuff on the test server sooner or later. If not, well epic lulz are incomming which doesnt have to be all that bad :S On a sidenote, i think the main reason why they give so little information about it is mainly that they still havent figured out what it should really be, see teh game dev thread about it.
Nuyan Zahedi Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:05:00 - [9] This is all a bit too skeptical for my taste. And comparing it with WoW battlegrounds goes way too far. It is however indeed probably a controlled form of PvP, that may go a little bit against the player-driven sandbox idea, but you've got to be realistic. When CCP made Eve Online they somehow decided to throw 4 major Empires (+ an awful lot more smaller factions) in the backstory of their game, perhaps they shouldn't have, because if they wouldn't EVE could've become a truly fully player-driven sandbox game. Thing is that we're stuck with 4 major NPC Empires that supposedly have an enormous influence on the universe. Now what would you want CCP to do with that? Do like all the other MMO developers out there and keep it a static world where the storyline doesn't progress and where was as players can completely ignore all the storyline? I'd applaud CCP for actually progressing the storyline with some major events that are supported by implemented game-mechanics. Actually letting players have an influence on what The Empires control and what not is already incredibly ambitious. And you've got to be realistic, epic bombardments and huge npc fleets dynamically moving around and conquering places is (probably) impossible to implement and that wouldn't be all that player-driven. And if all FW would be is just a massive war-dec implementation that gives players a lot of targets you can shoot at with actually a good reason (besides doing it just for fun and forum-bragging which is mostly the reason for pvp action at the moment), I'd already be very happy with it. Missions/Standings-grind make me frown a bit as well, but a lot of people seem to like that playstyle and this could be the much needed fix for the currently flawed risk vs reward between high-sec and low-sec. So lets not be too cynical, I do hope for you and those who don't want to side with any NPC faction that there'll be a way to join all the combat and shoot at the involved pilots. What about a way to join the massive war-dec without backing up a NPC faction and without any standings gain, CCP? -- My blog
Seth Ruin Minmatar Galactic Exploration and Mining Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:11:00 - [10] The article itself says FW is being implemented to ease players from the "carebear" lifestyle of Empire into PvP more like 0.0. To that end, I'd say FW is great. It won't take anything away from the game, and those who want to PvP as they always have in its current form will still be free to do so. However, this will give "carebear" players a more gentle approach to PvP, which in turn will help the 0.0 alliances grab recruits. Besides, anyone who thinks missions in their current form are fine is flawed in the head.
Scout McAlt	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:22:00 - [11] Edited by: Scout McAlt on 26/04/2008 15:24:41 Originally by: Sakura Nihil Is it possible that I'm just overreacting, you say, that this is all hype? Todays Typical PvPer Solo PvP - finds people try to outblob him (which is fun pulling off hit and runs, but long term unviable) Small gang pvp - great fun, only if both sides commit. hunting ratters - 3 x wcs ratters who cloak/logoff the second you come into local. You tend to only kill people who are not paying attention to local. Joins fleet battle - Powerpoint eve due to being Lagged out To get the 1% of epic OMG stuff, you have to go through 99% of grind. Basically, lots of pvpers have found the game gone to sh*t with dubious tactics people do to stay alive (bacon for example, 3 x wcs ratting ravens, Nanofag etc). This is because there is nothing to force both sides to commit to a fight. Factional warfare changes this. It actually gives 24/7 pvp to the pvpers and makes sure people commit to a fight. This is finally Lag free 24/7 on demand pvp happening. And about bloody time too!
Red Harvest	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:35:00 - [12] Edited by: Red Harvest on 26/04/2008 15:38:32 Originally by: Indigo Johnson As said, what Factioanl Warfare should be No holds barred Everyone opts in, there is no "on the fence", if you play eve you are part of the conflict Every system, bar a core group of systems, has the potential to be swung to an opposing side. The process by which this happens could be a number of ways to many to list in this post. Mission running should not determing factional warfare, player v player kills should trump mission contributions to system changes Will this be it, probably not, will give CCP benefit of the doubt and see if, on release, it isn't just a huge clone of WoW BGs. NPC grind for faction = boring repetitive drivel imo, hope thats not the corner stone of factional warfare. Sry but thats total BS! Most of the empire ppl are happy with how it is, otherwise they wouldnt be in empire nor playing EVE at all. Forcing them into PvP (the ship vs ship kind) would just scare most of them away. Giving ppl a choice and putting it in a controlled enviroment is really the best way to bridge both sides. Hopefully CCP will make the system watertight to prevent ppl from sabotaging their own side. (how about you cant shoot ppl in your own team? just to prevent some idiots from having "funny" ideas and the pirates to sabotage their own teams for the loot.) PS: So far so good and putting FW into new regions is the best news about it!
Blood Daemon Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.26 15:38:00 - [13] Edited by: Blood Daemon on 26/04/2008 15:40:05 I just say that put each style of player into the war.. Industrials - Create the ship for a certain faction, for each ship given to the faction it get's x10 and then sold on the market for "war effort cheap".. also this goes for modules.. DIRT CHEAP BECAUSE IT'S WAR WE NEEDZ CHEAP SHIPS!!!! Mission Runners - Go on espionage to gain information to destroy key points of the opposing factions (PvE style), this then disables or makes certain station services of the opposing faction unusable unless you pay a fee. PvP'ers - These guys gets to roam around free an pew pew lol my idea's never goin to happen, but what I mean to say is give EACH PROFESSION A SPECIFIC ROLE TO DO WITHIN THE WAR, SO WE FEEL SPESHULZ ------------------ Originally by: Treelox CCP, keep your pimp hand strong!!!!
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:02:00 - [14] Originally by: Illwill Bill What I find to be worrying, is that CCP is keeping so quiet about it. Compared to when previous expansions were released, they are keeping awfully quiet about new features. People say this every update. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Cailais Sakura, First off none of us know the detail of FW, so how can you start complaining about it? You dont know it will involve POS warfare, you dont know how much player interaction will occur. I think its important to discuss the possibilities that might be on the table. Do I say it will or will not have something? Of course not, all I'm saying is that from what appears to have been a test case of CCP's, it might be. By having a dialogue about something that's in development, we have a chance to think this out and offer our thoughts to CCP before its set in stone and ready to be fed to us. Originally by: Roy Batty68 Standings. Missions. Opt-in Red-v-Blue. OF COURSE that's what it will be. What else could it be? Faction warfare, among with planetary exploration and the Jove, is one of the things that has been promised for a long time and never been implemented. There have been 5 expansions slated to increase the tension for it, Cold War, RMR, and the entire Kali series of releases (Rev1, Rev2, Trinity), articles in EON describing what it could be, its supposed to be a big deal with lots of bloodshed and conflict. But, all we're supposedly getting is more missions, and opt-in RvB. Doesn't that seem like a bit of a letdown? Originally by: Roy Batty68 Perhaps you should describe more of what your vision is/was. At least then we could discuss the feasibility of it. Fair enough, really. What's the old saying, "don't say something sucks unless you have a plan to fix it"? My basic thoughts are to make it centered around two things, FW flags and chat channels. In short, when an individual, corp, or alliance signs up to fight for the faction, they have their FW flags turned on for that specific race. Any group that's at war with them or -5 standings or worse can be shot by them, as well as vice-versa. Simultaneously, they're placed into a chat channel that corresponds to a "reserve fleet" they'd be assigned to - for example, if I were to sign up on a Gallente character near Luminaire, I'd be placed into the Crux Defense Fleet, maybe charged with defending the home system and Oursulaert from intrusion by enemy elements that would disrupt trade and commerce. In contrast, sign up in lowsec or on the border of an empire, say Korsiki (near Geminate and the Forge/Heimatar transition), and you'd be assigned to border duty with something like the "4th Aulari Task Force", with regular attacks into the opponents space. When assigned to a fleet, you'd gain access to their chat channel that'd be permanent, like local, until you are dismissed or leave of your own free will. There, you would coordinate with others individuals, most from various corps and alliances but some freelancers as well, passing intelligence and forming up gangs to hunt the enemy. To prevent easy infiltration, there would be a number of different fleets, generally with number caps, say 100-250 (variable, really), which would also make chatting and intel sharing easier - see how fast the newbie help chat scrolls and you'll see what I mean. For each case, there would be objectives to be met. Critical system defense, for example, would mean that your fleet would have to protect stations, landmarks, and anything of value within its patrol sector. Succeed in defending it, and your fleet shares in the benefits which could be termed FP, faction points or something - think of this as the sort of "glory" quantified - lose ships, non-critical objectives, and you get penalized for "suboptimality". As the war progresses for outstanding service in combat over time or a single battle, medals could be awarded, prizes, not to mention potentially "command" of the fleets. While I shudder at the thought of "Vice-Admiral Hardin of Holy Domain Task Force", you have to admit it would be interesting to play where you knew one day you could reach something like that . Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:12:00 - [16] Attacking objectives would be the flip side of the coin. If an attack is successful in destroying the objectives, you get FP, and again, get penalized depending on how much you were expected to lose versus actually losing. You know, Par 3 . The question then becomes, what do you fight over? Stations, they are the things that most naturally come to mind, and this is where it gets interesting politically. Say your fleet attacks a station in Korsiki, in accordance with your target profile, but ... EVE-University lives there. Would you rather fight for your cause and be heartless, ruthless Minmatar warriors, or show deference to EVE-Uni? Would the Caldari defenders exploit this fact, and start basing more of their defense fleet out of that station ? Last thought regarding this is that from time to time, you could have Mercury actors (AURORA's successors) portraying admirals that lead serious offensives. Say your forces have pushed up the hypothetical pipe from Korsiki to Jita, and are threatening the holy system of lag (and loot) as well as New Caldari and Sobaseki. Bring up a fleet admiral, Mercury, and go to work, make taking 0.9 and 1.0 space serious business, make it tough and mean something. That's off the top of my head, of course, so its not perfect, but its a start. While you'd be shooting structures, they'd mean something as you'd have neutral parties in the way, potentially, that could create interesting politics in the process, on top of actually inconveniencing the enemy and creating actual damage that is seen and felt in EVE. Blowing up empire stations isn't exactly the thought, as they're not player-built (for now, Jade, for now ), but they'd be conquerable with less effort that the 0.0 ones as they're POS-independent. Feel free to expand and criticize if you have valid points and suggestions, of course. Originally by: Scout McAlt Factional warfare changes this. It actually gives 24/7 pvp to the pvpers and makes sure people commit to a fight. This is finally Lag free 24/7 on demand pvp happening. And about bloody time too! If it occurs like the RvB experiment has, I'd agree very much. The way it has been presented by CCP just has a bad taste in its mouth, it has the potential to be so much more. Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:16:00 - [17] Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Sak. Let it come and then we'll judge it.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Vitrael Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Sak. Less robe and wizard hat, Vit . Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Cailais Amarr VITOC Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:23:00 - [19] Im not sure what you were expecting from FW - everyones who's amarr is now a war target to everyone whos minny? There has to be at least some form of "opt in" / "opt out" or youll end up with players in the same corp blasting each other. Now you might think thats fine, but the trauma that would cause to micro-communities of players (which is what corps are) would be disasterous. C. A new look at Local - IDEA
Sir Drake	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:26:00 - [20] I wonder how they are planning to balance the risk/reward for this. Really not a job i would want to have the resposibility for. ------------------------------------------------------- Sig was removed due to derogatory comments towards a group of people. -Karl Chroimcer I like that.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:29:00 - [21] Originally by: Cailais There has to be at least some form of "opt in" / "opt out" or youll end up with players in the same corp blasting each other. Now you might think thats fine, but the trauma that would cause to micro-communities of players (which is what corps are) would be disasterous. It seems pretty flexible, really. The devs could either go for the route that "every individual has a choice", that would make pro-faction groups of individuals versus the extreme of "faction association", where if you're an individual in a corp, you'd be associated with the decision your alliance executor makes. The latter however would invariably create local stresses within corps and alliances, which may be more than they want to do.
Roy Batty68 Caldari Immortal Dead	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:43:00 - [22] Originally by: Sakura Nihil In short, when an individual, corp, or alliance signs up to fight for the faction, they have their FW flags turned on for that specific race. Which is basically an opt-in, no? And the rest of your description sounds like just a perma-war situation with added flavor of points, medals, and aurora actors as leaders. Which is likely not that much different than what they're implementing. So basically the only difference is - No missions in your version. But missions could be a form of different tactical objectives depending on how they spin them, so... kind of a wash. - Real systems and stations as objectives as opposed to the hinted at new systems with "fake" territorial objectives I'm not going to mention your channel idea because I would actually be pretty surprised if they didn't include that, even the most basic, way too spammy form. So at the root of it, you're offended by the fake territory objectives? I can sort of see your point. It does seem a bit contrived. Not really meshing with the rest of eve.
Cordran Li Gallente The Really Awesome Players Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.26 16:49:00 - [23] I think being able to change what each empire owns is cool enough.
Ario Caldari Pelennor Swarm Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:23:00 - [24] Originally by: Sakura Nihil -Systems will change hands based on player success or failure. It would be great if this were implemented and in doing so, system security ratings being altered by FW. Say for a system to change hands, enough FW points would have to be made to reduce the security status to 0.1 and then able to climb back up with a different owner. FW points would come from the new missions, and from war target kills. this would allow both pvper's and pve players to play an active role in changing eve. PvPers would hunt in hostile fractions systems to reduce the security status, or they would patrol 'their' sov systems to help improve the sec status. Ballance here would be key, as if everyone decided to join one side, one empire would take over the galaxy.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Roy Batty68 So at the root of it, you're offended by the fake territory objectives? I can sort of see your point. It does seem a bit contrived. Not really meshing with the rest of eve. Pretty much yes, as well as it not living up to the expectations they've built for it over the past. I'm ex-SF, so it takes two pages to make that point . Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Code Chills	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:49:00 - [26] If I get to nuke the Gallente Senate I'm in. Having 10 0.0 Systems to fight over is a start. Maybe if you make it "All 10 Systems are Amarr Controlled, so the next 10 Minmatar/Gallente Systems are now available for Amarr attacks." At the same time Gallente wtfpwned us Caldari while we were still mating with their women... cough... erm... conferencing! So the other frontier its full Gallente Control. So they can decide on wether to take on Amarr or try and fight more Caldari Mission Runners. How do you decide? VOTE :D Put a Voting-Booth on every Station. Everyone enlisted in the Factional Warfare can cast a vote on where to go next, while Propaganda everywere is telling you why to hate other humans! And the further you get into the oposing territory the harder the NPC reinforcements cough Missions cough get. Evtl facing the State Titans and maybe... just maybe... be really nice and get us to give the Gallente Senate some Orbital Bombardment Treatment they seem to be so fond of!
Jecob	Posted - 2008.04.26 17:57:00 - [27] Edited by: Jecob on 26/04/2008 18:02:06 Originally by: Sakura Nihil Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 26/04/2008 13:07:02 To begin with, let me bring you all up-to-date on what I'm going to be talking about. On Thursday the 24th, one of mmorpg.com's reporters at the NY ComicCon got a preview of EVE's upcoming expansion. Their preview of things to come, Faction Warfare. TLDR, you say? Let me summarize it for you in bullet points. -The four empires will break the uneasy peace and go to war. -Players will be able to sign up for one side or another. -You run missions for them, gaining more standings in the process. -Sign up individually or as a corporation. -Fight against people your faction is at war against. -You get to attack structures if you don't want to fight in the war. -Systems will change hands based on player success or failure. Awesome! thanks so much for that!
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.26 18:07:00 - [28] Originally by: Sakura Nihil Epic whine. Your argument is based essentially on: "PvE stuff I hate it, how the Dev have the courage to even think about it" "Not new 0.0 system, how the Dev have te courage to add systems to empire instead of 0.0" "Only the playstile I like must be supported, death to all other playstiles" All the above judging what will be FW from a press release for publicity, refusing to accept any playstile that don't conform to what you like and pretending to make all other players go and do what you love because you know what is right. So even if FW is all that you dislike, where it damage you? If you don't like it you will not be forced to join in. The idea that some development is done for thing that don't interest you bother you so much? EVE is a sandbox game so other playstiles are supported than "epic fleets" PvP.
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.04.26 18:14:00 - [29] Originally by: Indigo Johnson As said, what Factioanl Warfare should be No holds barred Everyone opts in, there is no "on the fence", if you play eve you are part of the conflict Every system, bar a core group of systems, has the potential to be swung to an opposing side. The process by which this happens could be a number of ways to many to list in this post. Mission running should not determing factional warfare, player v player kills should trump mission contributions to system changes Will this be it, probably not, will give CCP benefit of the doubt and see if, on release, it isn't just a huge clone of WoW BGs. NPC grind for faction = boring repetitive drivel imo, hope thats not the corner stone of factional warfare. I hope to hell you're way off on this, this reads just like someone looking to be able to gank everyone else everywhere, a fate worse than any battleground. Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Antonia Frak Republic University	Posted - 2008.04.26 18:30:00 - [30] Factional Warfare will be great for roleplayers. Not so great, but cool, for non-roleplayers. Doing Factional Warfare without knowing about a bit about factions and it's insides and without rolepaying with it's entities/corps/alliances is gonna drop the enjoyment factor for sure. Read chronicles, short stories, etc before engaging in factional warfare. If not, it is going to be a just an "automated system" for pve-pvp gamestyle.
Tzar'rim Reckless Corsairs	Posted - 2008.04.26 18:54:00 - [31] I feel an alarmclock relic raid coming up.
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything. Wrath.	Posted - 2008.04.26 19:31:00 - [32] Factional warfare should not be something players can choose to avoid if they wish to. It should affect them whether they choose to partake in it or not, the best a player can do is choose to what degree it will affect within the philosophy of risk vs reward. Unfortunately EVE has for the most part taken turns for the worse as time has gone on. Yes CCP has made great changes since 2003 but the games core fundamental ideals from 2003 have changed for the worse. Although it's too soon to come to any conclusions and speculation at this point is stupid, I still wish to state my displeasure of FW if it is anything like WoW battlegrounds.
Avel Kereka Amarr The Aegis Militia Aegis Militia	Posted - 2008.04.26 19:58:00 - [33] I'm not sure how much of the OP is accurate, but having the ability to actually fight for certain values is an excellent idea. PVP currently sucks, I mean the whole "local chat" tactic alone is ridiculous. Technically, we can't suicide ram and overall our options are pretty limited when we come across a clearly superior ship/force, which is what most engagements are. Tactics really only come into play in extended fleet engagements, everything else is pretty much getting webbed and blown up in a few seconds. RP-wise, 0.0 is useless, and I won't miss it if people flock to factional warfare and leave all the "tough guys" crying for attention in some barren pocket of space nobody really cares about. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that a bit of structure won't hurt EVE. We don't make much of a difference now anyway. A game is a game, and that means that it has limitations developers put on it so players have something to do in a controlled environment. We've got these great factions, and sometimes I find the forums more interesting than the game itself. Do I care if player corp X beats corp Y, then gets beaten by corp A three days later? No. It means nothing. Do I care if the Amarrian Empire takes 5 systems and enslaves millions, enriching me in the process? Maybe giving rise to some nice news stories, and fleet battles I actually feel like I'm contributing in? Yes. I'm sure CCP is paying attention to what other companies are doing--Mythic comes to mind--and they're looking at how to implement controlled PVP in a way that makes it fun for the whole spectrum of players, not not just those willing to schedule Friday night patrols in top-of-the-line ships.
Carebearingtonfieldville University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.26 20:08:00 - [34] Yeah their website doesn't let you in if you have cookies disabled. **** them
Dealth Striker Caldari Striker Ltd	Posted - 2008.04.26 20:35:00 - [35] Originally by: Red Harvest Edited by: Red Harvest on 26/04/2008 15:38:32 Originally by: Indigo Johnson As said, what Factioanl Warfare should be No holds barred Everyone opts in, there is no "on the fence", if you play eve you are part of the conflict Every system, bar a core group of systems, has the potential to be swung to an opposing side. The process by which this happens could be a number of ways to many to list in this post. Mission running should not determing factional warfare, player v player kills should trump mission contributions to system changes Will this be it, probably not, will give CCP benefit of the doubt and see if, on release, it isn't just a huge clone of WoW BGs. NPC grind for faction = boring repetitive drivel imo, hope thats not the corner stone of factional warfare. Sry but thats total BS! Most of the empire ppl are happy with how it is, otherwise they wouldnt be in empire nor playing EVE at all. Forcing them into PvP (the ship vs ship kind) would just scare most of them away. Giving ppl a choice and putting it in a controlled enviroment is really the best way to bridge both sides. Hopefully CCP will make the system watertight to prevent ppl from sabotaging their own side. (how about you cant shoot ppl in your own team? just to prevent some idiots from having "funny" ideas and the pirates to sabotage their own teams for the loot.) PS: So far so good and putting FW into new regions is the best news about it! LOL - that is truly a funny statement - thank you for the good laugh --------------------- Communication is Key!
Ehronn Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.04.26 20:41:00 - [36] Caldari = Albs?! WOOT ----------------------- Dysfunctional Playground
000Hunter000 Gallente Missiles 'R' Us	Posted - 2008.04.26 20:58:00 - [37] Originally by: Zeknichov Factional warfare should not be something players can choose to avoid if they wish to. ALERT!!! We have an incomming cloaked 'lets force pvp on the carebears' thread on our hands!!! SO yeah this game is about not beeing 100% safe where ever u go, but forcing a permanent wardec on everyone? erm.. no??? Just make it like this, corps can decide whether or not to participate on the factional warfare thingy, if they agree upon it, they are now free to attack and be attacked by corps who decided to join the other sides cause instead. If u wanna partake urselves but ur corp doesn't ur always free to quit and either join a corp who does or start ur own. Personally i also think only corps who have a certain amount of standing to a faction should be able to participate, call me crazy but i think standing should finally have a real purpose and one for pvp no less
Karlemgne Tides Of War	Posted - 2008.04.26 21:02:00 - [38] Whine, whine, whine. That's all anyone ever does on these forums. But since its so popular, I'll add my two cents. Why on gods green earth do I want more 0.0 pvp? I'm not a big fan of POS sieges and the old, primary pop, primary, pop, lag... lag... primary... lag... pop... ctd... log in... oh look I'm in a station 50 jumps away. I'm also not a fan of 50 man dictor camps, zooming 10 man nano-gangs that run away at the first sign of a Huginn or Rapier, or being camped into an outpost because 90% of the 30 people in station with me won't undock to take on the 6 guys camping the station. No. No more 0.0 pvp. ANYTHING but more 0.0 pvp. I want my small roaming gangs back. That's what I want. That your complaining that FW won't be like 0.0 is ******* ridiculous. -Karlemgne
Ruoska	Posted - 2008.04.26 21:30:00 - [39] Here's a short and crude version what I was dreaming up one day as FW... You can become an enlisted pilot for the faction. But unlike RvB, your civilian identity masked by electronic means and by the fact that you are not flying your own ship, but are given a ship along with the fittings by the faction, according to your capabilities. You would simply be shown as W1M3 etc. code (Wing 1, Member 3). So, how would you fight then? You would register at the navy station for active duty with your best quess for your availability (duration) of the session. Now here would be the real beef of the FW, a serious server side logic that manages these schedules and availabilities along with player locations and creates "missions". Let's say a server sees 12 people in Caldari ranks in active duty for an hour or more estimated availability and 16 at Gallente side. Next the server does very rough ranking based on skills invested in combat skills and selects 12 from the 16 available in Gallente side to more or less match what Caldari side has, or atleast attempts to close the gap somewhat. All these pilots are sent urgent evemail along with popup message to scramble for a fight. Pilots would arrive at given time and given ships and fittings that they cannot beef up themselves and become these gray figures only indentified by W<x>M<y> type of name, and undocked along with NPC fleet manager (note, not boss). Gang/Fleet would have been put up automatically, and the Fleet Manager would warp and jump (!) automatically the fleet to operations area. This time would be made available for players to elect (simple most votes or whatever) a FC amongst themselves or appointed by the fleet manager as the most combat SP character if no voting happens. Extensive library of military operations would be used and dynamic scenario generated based on general win/lose, attacking/defending situations for various purposes, assets or just plain head-to-head action. This would affect handed out ships and the call for duty explanations and evemail, naturally. Shooting happens, strategic objectives destroyed of defended (remote repping, jamming attackers, you name it) if any present and finally when no one remains alive or in the battlefield a victor is declared. Alternatively all ammo is expended and status quo is detected and both parties withdraw by Fleet Manager NPC's command and the fight is declared draw. Large battles can be supplemented with reinforcements from the available pool, when numbers become available and those that don't "fit" into a call for duty gain precedance point for the next calling, that way trying to ensure all players get roughly the equal changes to play. Outcomes and their objectives, small and big, would reflect to control and intelligence assets of the faction and would dynamically change future fights when appropriate and would eventually cause even transferral of one systems ownership from one faction to another if resistent and long enough winnings are obtained by opposing faction. (security level of the system should dictate how hard it is to conqure) This borderline insane rambling is just very short and VERY incomplete attempt to describe how I might have gone about realising FW into Eve... Apologies for inconhearent writing.
Ruoska	Posted - 2008.04.26 21:38:00 - [40] Now, trying to explain a few things; Your civilian identity masked. Friends on opposite sides could not easily play foul play - especially if you don't see your own designation and are unable to give it out in TeamSpeak or similar. It would also go along with RP story, why would you be able to travel unmolested when not on duty/call... NPC Fleet manager... well, have you ever flown in a gang with really new players? Trust me, you want this automated, so you get to the fight as a group to begin with... Faction ships and not your own? Yes! I was in Red vs Blue and the best fights were those that were arranged in a fashion that both sides had even roughly the same forces. Regular PvP is rampant with one sided ganks already - why not try to go for semi-even fights for adrenalin pumping action for both sides? For that purpose, complex server side logic creates the fleets down to the ammo and scripts provided. Doesn't cost people anything, so no one should benefit from them either, so no wrecks, no loot nor salvage. Winners might be entitled for LP rewards at most, standings for duty would be granted for both sides at any rate. ...such is the state of my insanity...
Kilhu Emmek Minmatar Redshift Industrial	Posted - 2008.04.26 22:02:00 - [41] Man, I don't know. Fleet combat's still hosed, there are still hundreds of nasty little bugs unfixed, and now we're gonna get factional warfare and have to choose sides based on that? And it hoses anyone who does "complex roleplay" where maybe they're working both sides against the middle or (like me) are mostly Minmatar/Gallente loyal but also run pretty deep with the Thukker/Syndicate corps. I do not know, seriously. One nice thing about it: we'll be able to blow up macroers, finally. I guess they'll get macroer guards, now. One step closer to a non-MMO at that point, too, I suppose. Weird issues around this, to be sure.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.26 23:09:00 - [42] Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 26/04/2008 23:09:34 Originally by: 000Hunter000 SO yeah this game is about not beeing 100% safe where ever u go, but forcing a permanent wardec on everyone? erm.. no??? To be honest, he's right. While you shouldn't be safe from things like suicide ganking or wardecs against you from other corps, this should be opt-in. You should have the option to stay neutral in this fight.
pherlopolus Primal Directive 7-B	Posted - 2008.04.27 01:17:00 - [43] you know, i used to play sim city a bit, my favorit bit was reaping destruction on my city to see how it managed to recover all by itself. i'd love it FW did have wide reaching impact on the whole of the eve galaxy, it should. carebears will still be carebears, 0.0 people will still live in 0.0 and fight for space. but in empire it would be great to be able to side with a faction, either signing up for a player faction army, or your corp aligning itself etc. of course this should include you not being able to visit enemy space without a concordesc type response from faction navies (of course after a delay to enable you to recloak ;) ) people who want to war will be able to take a new steer on it, i dont ultimately think that more ships will get blown up, just differently. i dont care how many people dont like RP, but can you imagine being under the fleet command of a ccp paid fleet commander, taking ownership of systems on behalf of your choen faction? medals?purple hearts?mentions in dispatches? awesomeness!!
techzer0 IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.04.27 01:26:00 - [44] Death to amarr!!! Oh and it will be a lot more than just a few noobs participating, I can guarantee that. I'm all for killing someone who supports different EVE ideals than me and will do anything I can to grief the crap outta them I'm just waiting to see how it works out, heh
Kyung Tsiung	Posted - 2008.04.27 02:41:00 - [45] Hmm interesting concept realy..and yet probably yet another opportunity for meta gaming gone wild
Mudrat	Posted - 2008.04.27 02:50:00 - [46] it's giong to be caldari achura vs. everyone else
El'Niaga Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.27 04:09:00 - [47] I'd almost rather have ambulation. On the bright side though if this does come about and my NPC faction can be attacked I guess I'll join/make a Player Corp to sit in :). Without seeing all the associated data, it's difficult to know exactly what they plan. I'm not convinced it'll be a good move for the game but it could be. My greatest concern is that turning hi sec into a war zone may impede new player development causing new players to become discouraged and leave EVE. This would make it hard on the game to support itself longterm. That said I'd really need to know a lot more about the expansion before I could pass judgment on it.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2008.04.27 04:31:00 - [48] I'm strongly in favor of faction warfare system that has real impact on system ownership, system security, and players (such as inability to dock at hostile faction stations). There is no doubt that such player driven game model is the most exciting to any serious gamer (casual gamers may not agreee). However, there is 1 major problem that needs to be addressed with any such dynamic model: How to deal with crisis situation? In other words - what to do when 1 side wins, dominates all opposing factions. Any system where winning and losing means something real - will make people in losing factions hurt bad. This pain cannot be avoided. If you eliminate pain of defeat, you also make victory meaningless, and the whole game becomes not so interesting. The only possible direction is to put a limit on suffering of the losing factions. Somehow, dynamic system needs to be reset when it reaches critical state. So, how do we reset the system when 1 faction becomes overly dominating? I think that is a very serious question that effects all future games, not just EVE. I think it's the next stage in evolution of massive multiplayer gaming. I'd like to hear some serious answers
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.27 04:39:00 - [49] It's "Empyrean". Not only does that article not spell it right, they don't even spell it consistently within the article.
Diek Ran Amarr Autonums	Posted - 2008.04.27 04:44:00 - [50] Originally by: Kyra Felann It's "Empyrean". Not only does that article not spell it right, they don't even spell it consistently within the article. Ask Jenny Spitfire how to spell it
Face Lifter	Posted - 2008.04.27 04:51:00 - [51] Now that I spent some time thinking about my own question (previous post), I realized that CCP is already on the edge of dynamic game model evolution. Our 0.0 player empires are a perfect example of what faction warfare could be. We can learn quite a bit from player empires. The most obvious thing we learn from them is that when some empire loses badly, it disolves. New empires form all the time, old ones die. This is at the core of a dynamic game model. But can that be applied to NPC factions? certainly not as they are done currently. This would be a headache. Another thing we learn from 0.0 empires: when 1 empire becomes too powerful, a few weaker empires can ally together and fight against it. This is 2nd basic element of a dynamic game model. This element can be applied successfully to current NPC factions, tho have to be careful not to make it too artificial. I think that in a truely dynamic faction warfare system, it would be impossible to have permanent NPC factions. A faction that loses badly has to be disolved. Something new can come up in its place. A faction that becomes too dominating should be split into new factions, thus providing a successful reset of the dynamic system. If done just right, it can all look very natural
Kien Marekk	Posted - 2008.04.27 06:56:00 - [52] Sounds to stupid to be real. Why the $%*^$%^ do we need 0.0 pvp in empire? Did CCP Ceo wake up one day "You know what, lets turn 0.0 pvp into the new lowsec, so spreadout u cant find anyone"
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.04.27 08:50:00 - [53] Well shooting POSes, OK Shooting POSes in Empire, no. I mean : without dreads ? 2isk
Theresa	Posted - 2008.04.27 10:27:00 - [54] It's about time. This is best idea out of CCP ever. We needed something to promote RPing and the general story.
Misanth The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.27 10:38:00 - [55] Got several questions/issues with this before it even comes. * What is the point of FW? Apart from chosing side with something, I don't understand what the rewards would be. Similar to mission running for a corporation? You earn LP and drop standing with the hostiles? * Will it affect Empire as we know it today? I have an alt in Empire and she doesn't exit the same region she is working in. If we start having players changing the owner of the station etc, I'm worried how that would affect her gameplay. * New/young players. Will they automaticly, and perhaps by accident (not knowing better), start up a race and then get "locked up"? Say you start as Amarr and a miner, then with some experience of mission running etc you realise that you'd rather be a Gallente PvP pilot. Is it a risk your standings with Gallente will forever be ruined? * How will it affect Empire trading? I mean if we can't transport things between all factions, we should see alot of Empire alts that people do for each factions purely for transporting. A full-time trader/transporter might now suddenly need 3 alts to support his whateverfaction-main? * "sign up alone or sign up as corp".. how permanet will it be, and how much space will it concern? You know, I personally been moving around in whole EVE, I been parts of several corporations. Not because I didn't enjoy my current ones, rather because I needed something that better suited my playstyle. Would my ex-corp pull me into some war that would ruin my chances with a new corp? That'd be really really really horrible, totally ruin the game? And if neither of the above happens, I wonder what the point is.. if it doesn't have a big impact on EVE, it is just another new mission-grinding faction to chose, right? Then it's only a question of what the reward is, nothing else. Honestly I feel this is totall bullcrap, and I fail to understand why CCP want to implement it. I am only guesstimating tho, so I hope it pulls off to be something totally different that I failed to understand. What it never can and never should affect tho, is players mobility. We need to be able to swap corps/areas if we need to. Corps die, corps change, players change. Killing off our mobility will kill off the game.
Kilhu Emmek Minmatar Redshift Industrial	Posted - 2008.04.27 11:24:00 - [56] Something else that just occurred to me. All those missions where you leave, say, a Minmatar or Gallente station only to ferry soil or batteries or someone's toothbrush to ... and Amarr station two systems over? I guess those are all gonna need a fix. Might be time to train advanced pew pew command V. --
Satyricon Nem'Divinia	Posted - 2008.04.27 16:31:00 - [57] I can see it now....2 amazing possibilities with faction warfare: 40m+sp pilots reactivate or relocate to high sec empire space and spend all day one shotting newbs of opposing factions. Jita's market legacy shuts down because noone can live long enough to dock, freighters start popping left and right, and prices sky rocket because demand increases because products never reach their destination.
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.27 17:03:00 - [58] Edited by: Rodj Blake on 27/04/2008 17:02:56 We already have a prototype form of FW in the game - the Saracens v Defiants event in the Bleak Lands.
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything. Wrath.	Posted - 2008.04.27 17:50:00 - [59] Edited by: Zeknichov on 27/04/2008 17:53:12 If you don't want to force factional warfare on everyone then it's not factional warfare. Rename it factional Olympics. Or you could call it battlegrounds and that's the exact point the OP is making. The extent factional warfare affacts everyone should differ depending on the choices each players makes but if you're Amarr and Amarr are losing then you should be making less isk then a player who is Gallente if Gallente is winning. If you're on the losing side, missions, mining, ratting, trading and safe empire space should be limited to you.
Rek Esket Minmatar Grand Stellar Alliance PURGE.	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:09:00 - [60] Originally by: Mudrat it's giong to be caldari achura vs. everyone else What a great idea. _________________________________________________ I fly an interceptor so I keep a small signature.
Diek Ran Amarr Autonums	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:39:00 - [61] Edited by: Diek Ran on 27/04/2008 18:39:22 Originally by: Misanth Got several questions/issues with this before it even comes. * What is the point of FW? Apart from chosing side with something, I don't understand what the rewards would be. Similar to mission running for a corporation? You earn LP and drop standing with the hostiles? ... Are missions as we know them today supposed to be completely replaced by FW: "Sign up and run our missions - or don't" __________________________________ Originally by: Verlyn I know it's my own fault, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT!
suzie stormbringer	Posted - 2008.04.27 19:00:00 - [62] I hope the 4 races have equal numbers. Would be a bit unfair if say caldari outnumbet gallente 5 to 1.
quickshot89 Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.27 21:42:00 - [63] i just hope we get the choice to stay out of a war if we dont want to enter it. for example, if you want into the war, you have to join a specific corp, such as the caldari navy that would be best IMO, ive only just started lvl 4 missions and i dont want to loose my ship any time soon
Tankn00blicus Cosmic Vacum Cleaners	Posted - 2008.04.28 01:52:00 - [64] Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 28/04/2008 01:55:44 With this system the whole of empire will be owned by caldari. Too many damn caldari mission runners, in ravens.
Cybele Lanier Amarr The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.28 21:07:00 - [65] Originally by: Seth Ruin The article itself says FW is being implemented to ease players from the "carebear" lifestyle of Empire into PvP more like 0.0. To that end, I'd say FW is great. It won't take anything away from the game, and those who want to PvP as they always have in its current form will still be free to do so. However, this will give "carebear" players a more gentle approach to PvP, which in turn will help the 0.0 alliances grab recruits. Agreed. I think the Tournament popularity and Red v Blue shows there is a market for easily accessible PVP that isn't really being met. --------------- ""Minimum collateral damage" and "Entire star system" do not belong in the same sentence."
Sionide Minmatar THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.04.28 21:32:00 - [66] Originally by: Cybele Lanier Agreed. I think the Tournament popularity and Red v Blue shows there is a market for easily accessible PVP that isn't really being met. I guess that is my problem with it, there are already alternatives if someone wants to just war on a "red vs blue" type senario. Though, if done right (using the different race factions) it could work. Namely, how the video game "Pirates" did it. You worked for a country (i.e. faction) and warring gave you rank, prestige and wealth. Hence, if people fight kill people from the other faction they should receive loyalty points for the faction they are working for to use it to get cool stuff. Of course, they would then also have to work on the loyalty store and make it have a lot cooler rewards, as well as give people ranks within the faction...perhaps giving discounts on the faction market or loyalty points needed to purchase a faction item. If they did that, its not a bad idea. === In Eve, never bring a knife to a knife fight.

CCP Ginger	Posted - 2008.04.29 08:44:00 - [67] You'll have to forgive me guys, im still ill (went to a hot country and got man flu, go figure!) but what i think your asking is if Factional Warfare will be held in systems apart from the general population of EVE as a kind of battleground? This is not true.

Juwi Kotch Gallente VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Carpe Universitas	Posted - 2008.04.29 09:12:00 - [68] Edited by: Juwi Kotch on 29/04/2008 09:12:35 I have only one concern regarding factional warfare: How will it affect corporations, seeing that the vast majority of all corporations are mixed races. When a corporation's Minmatar pilot decides to join FW, is he forced to leave the corporation, when it has Amarr pilots in it? If a corporation decides to join FW on the side of Gallente, are all Caldari pilots forced to leave? Juwi Kotch
Miasia Federatin Navy Assistance	Posted - 2008.04.29 10:03:00 - [69] HI CCP Ginger, Get well soon! Could we get a DevBlog or something else about this upcoming expansion? Best Regards Miasia
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.29 10:29:00 - [70] Originally by: CCP Ginger You'll have to forgive me guys, im still ill (went to a hot country and got man flu, go figure!) but what i think your asking is if Factional Warfare will be held in systems apart from the general population of EVE as a kind of battleground? This is not true. This is good to hear, Ginger. Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Odyssey.	Posted - 2008.04.29 10:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Tankn00blicus Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 28/04/2008 01:55:44 With this system the whole of empire will be owned by caldari. Too many damn caldari mission runners, in ravens. and you really think those missiosn runners are a match to pvpers? ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:04:00 - [72] Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 11:05:30 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Tankn00blicus Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 28/04/2008 01:55:44 With this system the whole of empire will be owned by caldari. Too many damn caldari mission runners, in ravens. and you really think those missiosn runners are a match to pvpers? Some of them, yes. The ones that can keep their head and know how to fit out their own ship could give the PvP crowd a run for their money. However it's true that a lot of mission runners will panic during their first few PvP fights and a fair number of them only know how to read the sticky in the Ships and Modules forum. But don't overlook the fact that a lot of mission runners are wealthy. Anyone running L4s is pulling down over 15mil an hour..and most runners actually enjoy doing that for hours on end. If those players can make the leap to seeing ships as expendable (which I think is at the heart of the 'Carebear Syndrome' in a lot of cases) they could become a serious force. The beauty of FW (I hope) is the ability to dip in and fight when you want then back out and rebuild resources. At present most forms of combat have longer lasting consequences (sec standing falls, kill rights, logistics). If FW is 'just' a mission system where you can go and fight players instead of NPCs for an hour or two then go back to mission whoring it could be the very answer. I'd like to know if podding will still be allowed or not. Tbh (and I'm sure some will flame me for this) I hope it isn't. That would remove what I think is the last major barrier for a lot of carebears. I know that the hardcore fighters will be dissappointed not to be able to seriously hurt another player by podding them back to the stone age but a lot of the Empire dwellers don't want to do that and don't want to risk it. A lot of us just want a chance to play 'Counterstrike in space' now and again without committing ourselves to a long-term change in gameplay. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:07:00 - [73] Originally by: Andrue I'd like to know if podding will still be allowed or not. Tbh (and I'm sure some will flame me for this) I hope it isn't. That would remove what I think is the last major barrier for a lot of carebears. You'd be involving yourself in a war between the factions. Why should your pod be safe? Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Christopher Scott Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:28:00 - [74] I think it is a given that if you are enlisted by a certain faction you gain complete jump-clone access in all of their stations. Otherwise, it would be really stupid. ------------------------------------ I support the following changes: Make warp acceleration faster!
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:31:00 - [75] Originally by: Christopher Scott I think it is a given that if you are enlisted by a certain faction you gain complete jump-clone access in all of their stations. The flip-side of that though is that you should be banned from docking at stations belonging to the enemy faction. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Batolemaeus Caldari Batolemaeus Corp	Posted - 2008.04.29 11:42:00 - [76] Originally by: Mudrat it's giong to be caldari achura vs. everyone else We will win, as they lack gang bonuses and leadership skills
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:27:00 - [77] Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 12:32:29 Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 12:29:18 Originally by: Sakura Nihil Originally by: Andrue I'd like to know if podding will still be allowed or not. Tbh (and I'm sure some will flame me for this) I hope it isn't. That would remove what I think is the last major barrier for a lot of carebears. You'd be involving yourself in a war between the factions. Why should your pod be safe? Because this is a computer game and I want to have fun with no risks. If I want risks and excitement I'll tell my boss' boss what I really think of their long term strategy and will introduce my girlfriends to each other. If your world is so small that you think what you do in Eve is important then fine. A lot of us though just want a laugh and some harmless entertainment and being podded is just really annoying. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:29:00 - [78] Originally by: Rodj Blake Originally by: Christopher Scott I think it is a given that if you are enlisted by a certain faction you gain complete jump-clone access in all of their stations. The flip-side of that though is that you should be banned from docking at stations belonging to the enemy faction. Yup, absolutely. That's good enough for me. I'm not sure it'll be good enough for the true carebears but it just might. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
suzie stormbringer	Posted - 2008.04.29 12:30:00 - [79] I once went on low sec mining trip in covetor with uber pvp as protection. First spawn came along and he launches 3 tech1 medium drones in the days when you could have ten from a typhoon. How he mnaged to get all those kills in pvp is a mystery to me.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2008.04.29 14:37:00 - [80] I was thinking about making a Phantom Tollbooth reference here, but I'm guessing nobody else would have the first idea what I was talking about... Regardless, the information you're working on, while fundamentally correct, has gone through a number of filters which make teasing from it the precise mechanical details an inexact science at best. Most importantly, the intent of this sort of interview is generally to impart information to non-players, and thus everything has to be translated into Layman by both interviewer and interviewee. Trying to translate it back into Player is the equivalent of the old English->German->English trick, in that while in the theory the fundamental meaning is conserved, in practice you terminate Kauderwelsch frequently above with a bundle. Inevitably some people are going to be disappointed with anything we do; hopefully more details will be available in the very near future in native Player so you guys can get your teeth into it. In the meantime though, let me just say that "WE ARE NOT MAKING EVE BATTLEGROUNDS" was a founding principle of the design. The fact that people are managing to derive "omg fw is eve battlegrounds" from this interview is indicative of nothing but the fact that generalist interviews are not a great source of detailed information, and that our players have active imaginations, both of which constitute known knowns, to quote His Rumsfeldness

Kerosene Caldari Fun Inc Black-Out	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:23:00 - [81] There's a lot of things I'd like to see in factional warfare and I'm kinda waiting to see what would happen but in agreement with a lot of posts I'd like to see some kind of dynamic warfare utilising low-sec. For example make the Rancer constellation worth something to fight over. Say if a faction controls more than half of the structures in the constellation then all members of that faction get a 5% speed boost. Pick low sec constellations all over eve and give them actual bonuses for the controlling faction (5% damage, armor repair, shield repair, mining amount, mission payout, LP's). This would add so much life into the thus far neglected low sec realm. __ Eve. Eve eve eve eve. EVE. Eve. Eve eve eve eve eve eve EVE eve eve. - Kerosene The way to stop isk farmers is to STOP BUYING ISK.
Manfred Rickenbocker The Elliance Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:41:00 - [82] ... You should have made the Phantom Tollbooth reference. Coolness ++ Anyway, on-topic. My fear (hope?) for carebears doing factional warfare is that a ton of neutral pirates will be in the mix. I'd like to see the space be NPC 0.0 (to avoid sec-hits for pvp) however unless its high-sec I cant see anyone but the most brave or foolish participating. Like when the Lv 5 agents were deployed, no one did them because the risk/reward wasn't done right and the systems were populated by pirates waiting to prey on unsuspecting (or not) mission runners. So, the question gets proposed: what kind of neutral yarr opportunities have been taken into account? ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
Kruel Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:45:00 - [83] Edited by: Kruel on 29/04/2008 15:45:12 Since a couple devs are here I have 1 simple (but important to me) question regarding FW: Can we sign up and kill & pod rival faction members wherever we see them in space? Or is this mission based? As an ex-privateer... lets just say I'd like to relive the glory days. :D ----------------------------------- You're not a pirate unless your -10
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:47:00 - [84] Originally by: Andrue Because this is a computer game and I want to have fun with no risks. If I want risks and excitement I'll tell my boss' boss what I really think of their long term strategy and will introduce my girlfriends to each other. Then you should stop playing Eve now, because Eve is about risk.
Tactus Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:58:00 - [85] Originally by: CCP Greyscale I was thinking about making a Phantom Tollbooth reference here, but I'm guessing nobody else would have the first idea what I was talking about... i'll make it for you. ________________________________________________ Originally by: Raivi ...but if spending all your imaginary money on an imaginary spaceship with a camo paintjob is wrong then I don't want to be right.
Wild Rho Amarr GoonFleet	Posted - 2008.04.29 15:59:00 - [86] Just a quick question although I'm not sure you can/are allowed to answer it but with the faction warfare starting up are we going to see actual border systems (chains of low/null sec) between the empires or will empire space remain one big blob of high sec in the middle of the map?
TimGascoigne	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:02:00 - [87] I think this is all spelt wrong what you mean to say is "Empyrean age" as inEmpyrean not "Empyrian Age" as the title says. Otherwise nice post but I don't understand why people want factional warfare? like who cares because I'm quite happy with the way empire works. That is being less profitable than 0.0
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:09:00 - [88] Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 16:10:36 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue Because this is a computer game and I want to have fun with no risks. If I want risks and excitement I'll tell my boss' boss what I really think of their long term strategy and will introduce my girlfriends to each other. Then you should stop playing Eve now, because Eve is about risk. Don't be silly. What risk can there be in playing a computer game? Eve is about two things only: Providing fun for players. Providing money for CCP. Most people do not enjoy being podded. That's why so few games have such harsh penalities. Historically CCP have done a good job of balancing their desire for a hardcore gaming experience against their desire to have large numbers of subscribers. Unfortunately I suspect that as the demands on the server require greater and greater investment it becomes harder to exclude the mainstream with a harsh experience. I have high hopes for FW but I suspect that unless they can get it to appeal to the wider 'pacifist' playerbase it is going to flop like L5 missions seem to have. I've been playing Eve for over four years now so I think I have a pretty good idea what it's about and a pretty good idea of what CCP are capable of. Given the amount of time and preparation FW has had I think it'll turn out quite well but not everything they do does. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:28:00 - [89] I don't really have a problem with opt in red vs blue. Obviously standings are going to be important and obviously running missions for your navy against your enemies are going to be involved. As long as you can capture territory an annex it to your chosen sides empire, I'm happy with it. Obviously a few core systems should be uncapturable, but the huge swathes of space in between the various capitals should be. Heck, maybe low sec could be capturable as well, you could pit the various empires against each other and player and npc pirates to see if they could conver ta system from low sec to hi sec or back the other way.
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.29 16:55:00 - [90] Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 29/04/2008 16:59:14 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue Because this is a computer game and I want to have fun with no risks. If I want risks and excitement I'll tell my boss' boss what I really think of their long term strategy and will introduce my girlfriends to each other. Then you should stop playing Eve now, because Eve is about risk. Pretty well put to be honest. Originally by: Andrue Most people do not enjoy being podded. That's why so few games have such harsh penalities. Historically CCP have done a good job of balancing their desire for a hardcore gaming experience against their desire to have large numbers of subscribers. Unfortunately I suspect that as the demands on the server require greater and greater investment it becomes harder to exclude the mainstream with a harsh experience. I don't enjoy being podded either, but when you undock, you have to have the mentality that your ship, pod, and immortal soul are already dead. While CCP could remove podding and what have you, making EVE easier for some, it wouldn't make EVE "EVE" anymore. Greyscale, could you do us a favor and clarify what the "kill missions" are, exactly? Or, at least how you all are envisioning it atm? Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Mr Toril Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2008.04.29 18:01:00 - [91] Wow some really great ideas here. I especially like Ruoskas idea when you sign up and then gets picked for a team and gets handed a ship and a diffrent namne. But there needs to be somekind of lose when you die, maybee lose lp or something like that? A universal ranking would be great. Face Lifter talks about one of the bigg issues. What happends when one faction gains the upper hand? Maybee you could split the large faction into several smaller ones? A large empire often has problem holding togheter. Then the rankings are reset and everyone can sign up again. I think what corp/allliance/race your are should not matter. Just sign up for one side and fight. Al though it should be hard to switch side.
Schalac Caldari Brotherhood of Wolves	Posted - 2008.04.29 18:24:00 - [92] I had an idea about factional warfare as I was reading about it the other day. I think that newb corps should be open PvP against one another from newb corps that the factions are at war with. I think this idea would be great for the game and for factional warfare. Allow newb corp members to run for director slots and open it up to operate more like player corps, other than a chat room, but with certain restrictions in place. Newb corps can't war dec player corps, corp hangers can only be placed in stations owned by the corp, every 2-3 months new directors are voted on. Players can't be given rights to operate station services, or refuel (unless they added a thing into faction warfare to where you can attack convoys fueling the stations of your enemy and it actually stopped the station from being online). This would also force those carebears that stay in newb corps for 2-3 years to actually get out and play the game. Any additional ideas of how this could work would be great, what should the newb corps be able and not able to do.
sgt carlini Caldari The 11th Order	Posted - 2008.04.29 18:31:00 - [93] One thing I would like to ask is: Will the war be all about fighting? Will miners and manufactures be able to support the "war effort"? I am a miner personally and though this sounds great I don't wan't to be left out. When the war comes, caldari are going to kick some galleante and minmatar rear!
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.29 20:18:00 - [94] Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 20:21:34 Originally by: Sakura Nihil Originally by: Andrue Most people do not enjoy being podded. That's why so few games have such harsh penalities. Historically CCP have done a good job of balancing their desire for a hardcore gaming experience against their desire to have large numbers of subscribers. Unfortunately I suspect that as the demands on the server require greater and greater investment it becomes harder to exclude the mainstream with a harsh experience. I don't enjoy being podded either, but when you undock, you have to have the mentality that your ship, pod, and immortal soul are already dead. But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. If the point of FW is to act as a bridge between carebearing and PvP it will have to start off with a safe environment. L5s have proved (if any proof were needed) that carebears will not just wander into low-sec because of something new. I see FW as potentially a new aspect of the game. Something that is entirely optional and if current PvPers don't want to do it they don't have to. At no point did I say that I felt podding should be removed from the game. Only from FW. You can continue exactly as you are now podding war targets and 0.0 residents to your heart's content. I'm just suggesting that you need to be gentle with carebears if you want them to change. It's no good saying "oh you've got to be tough to fight" because most will respond with "Oh well, I ain't tough, I'll stick with missions, thank you". First let them experience PvP and learn how to cope with it. Then when they have some confidence in their abilities they might cease to regard podding as a serious risk. At that point they are ready for PvP - or maybe that's why you both object to this. You suddenly see that it could result in the vast Empire hordes becoming proper PvP experts who will show you up for the cowards so many of you really are. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.29 21:53:00 - [95] Originally by: TimGascoigne I think this is all spelt wrong what you mean to say is "Empyrean age" as inEmpyrean not "Empyrian Age" as the title says. Otherwise nice post but I don't understand why people want factional warfare? like who cares because I'm quite happy with the way empire works. That is being less profitable than 0.0 I've already brought this up. The OP got the incorrect spelling from an article that not only spells it wrong, but doesn't spell it consistently.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.04.29 21:59:00 - [96] Originally by: Andrue Edited by: Andrue on 29/04/2008 16:10:36 Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue Because this is a computer game and I want to have fun with no risks. If I want risks and excitement I'll tell my boss' boss what I really think of their long term strategy and will introduce my girlfriends to each other. Then you should stop playing Eve now, because Eve is about risk. Don't be silly. What risk can there be in playing a computer game? Eve is about two things only: Providing fun for players. Providing money for CCP. Most people do not enjoy being podded. That's why so few games have such harsh penalities. Historically CCP have done a good job of balancing their desire for a hardcore gaming experience against their desire to have large numbers of subscribers. Unfortunately I suspect that as the demands on the server require greater and greater investment it becomes harder to exclude the mainstream with a harsh experience. I have high hopes for FW but I suspect that unless they can get it to appeal to the wider 'pacifist' playerbase it is going to flop like L5 missions seem to have. I've been playing Eve for over four years now so I think I have a pretty good idea what it's about and a pretty good idea of what CCP are capable of. Given the amount of time and preparation FW has had I think it'll turn out quite well but not everything they do does. Level 5 missions have flopped because they don't actually pay much more than L4 missions, given that you need more people to actually finish them. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Kyra Felann Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.29 22:00:00 - [97] Originally by: Andrue But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. I don't understand why carebears (I mean people who want to play with no risk, not miners or mission-runners necessarily) would play a game built around the idea of risk, non-consensual PvP, and the possibility of the loss of months worth of progress. I don't like sports, so I don't play sports games. I don't play sports games and then whine about having to throw and catch balls.
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.29 22:03:00 - [98] Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. I don't understand why carebears (I mean people who want to play with no risk, not miners or mission-runners necessarily) would play a game built around the idea of risk, non-consensual PvP, and the possibility of the loss of months worth of progress. I don't like sports, so I don't play sports games. I don't play sports games and then whine about having to throw and catch balls. Its not just eve. I play starcraft and meet sim city players all the time. All they do is build a pretty base and thats it. But if thats fun for people, then they are allowed to do it. -- Billion Isk Mission
Killer Kelly Caldari Risen Heretic Armada New Eden Federation.	Posted - 2008.04.29 22:04:00 - [99] CVA is gonna have a ball with this thing, man. ___________ I Get Money in New Eden Federation
Dex Nederland Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems	Posted - 2008.04.29 22:26:00 - [100] Originally by: Kyra Felann I don't understand why carebears (I mean people who want to play with no risk, not miners or mission-runners necessarily) would play a game built around the idea of risk, non-consensual PvP, and the possibility of the loss of months worth of progress. I don't like sports, so I don't play sports games. I don't play sports games and then whine about having to throw and catch balls. The game is not built around the idea of non-consensual PvP. The mechanics exist for this yes. It is built around flying spaceships. Since you use the sports example, perhaps you occasional enjoy walks in the park? There may be people playing sports there. What if they throw you the ball and expect you to play at that point? No - "well then you are missing the point of the park, it is a place for sport." You would disagree there is more to the park than sport. Quote: CVA is gonna have a ball with this thing, man. You haven't been seeing what the CVA guys have been saying have you? They have a vested interest in Providence. I highly doubt there forces are going to be directly involved in it because of this. They may provide direct support to Amarrian loyalist fighting for the Empire in the form of cheaper T2 ships. You can expect corps like PIE to have a ball with this. No offense to the 0.0 pvp fanatics with territory, but I highly doubt you will be getting seriously involved with FW unless you are willing to give up vast areas of 0.0 to those alliances not supporting the State, Empire, Federation, and Republic. Not an LDIS press release.
Datura Melody	Posted - 2008.04.29 22:28:00 - [101] Originally by: Lord WarATron Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. I don't understand why carebears (I mean people who want to play with no risk, not miners or mission-runners necessarily) would play a game built around the idea of risk, non-consensual PvP, and the possibility of the loss of months worth of progress. I don't like sports, so I don't play sports games. I don't play sports games and then whine about having to throw and catch balls. Its not just eve. I play starcraft and meet sim city players all the time. All they do is build a pretty base and thats it. But if thats fun for people, then they are allowed to do it. My roomate in college has a strange way of playing starcraft. He would create a custome map, disable the AI so it wouldnt do anything, then play the map for 2 hours simply building stuff, until he had a full base, everything researched, and max units. he would then fly this armada over to the AI's base, which had a command center and just the starting harvesters. He would gank that in about 5 seconds, at which point the map is finished, and he would restart. That being said, i will never understand how people are surprised that a large rework in game design warrants a reduced failsafe initial deployment. FW wont be complete on patch day. To expect so just shows how you do not understand the software development process, especially the development process of software running live services.
Draekas Darkwater Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2008.04.30 01:21:00 - [102] Personally, I would have liked something akin to DAOC's RvR system...like in the frontier realms. Something I can sink my teeth into when I want, and at the next play session, choose not to participate in without consequence to my current playstyle in my current play areas (all of high sec). When I speak of consequences, I don't even mean, getting my ship blown up. I speak more about.. will I screw my standings up that I can't travel around to other faction's space as I can now? Will other faction members be able to attack me wherever I go (as war targets are able to now). How quickly can I turn off FW and get back to normal gameplay with my friends? Ect, ect. That's the kind of consequences that I, as a carebear who likes the occational PvP, am concerned about when it comes to FW. I assume I am the type of EVE player this expansion is focused at.. the risk adverse, part-time PvP gamer. I do find WoW battlegrounds to be fun in small doses. I found DAOC RvR even more fun, because it it had persistance, larger goals, ect. Yet my PvP time in EVE as a percentage of my entire playtime, is way less than either of those games (DAOC being the highest by far).
Thorradin State War Academy	Posted - 2008.04.30 02:08:00 - [103] Originally by: suzie stormbringer I hope the 4 races have equal numbers. Would be a bit unfair if say caldari outnumbet gallente 5 to 1. PF wise it'd be the other way around, but hey, not our fault if the dirty Gallente are unpopular and don't make it wort our while. Would be fun to see a Batallion of Caldari. Torp ravens in the front, Rokhs and Scorpions in the rear with some Nighthawks and rooks as support while the Crows and nanocerbs play with the gallente. Would need an octo-smartbombing BS squad to deal with the omfghax Moros drones though.
Thorradin State War Academy	Posted - 2008.04.30 02:10:00 - [104] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Tankn00blicus Edited by: Tankn00blicus on 28/04/2008 01:55:44 With this system the whole of empire will be owned by caldari. Too many damn caldari mission runners, in ravens. and you really think those missiosn runners are a match to pvpers? I think 2-3 torp raven NPCers per PvPer in a domi or mega turns into a field of Gallente wrecks. A mega will have problems 1v1 against a raven, 3 will put all sorts of hurt on it.
Hurs Sokira Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District	Posted - 2008.04.30 03:29:00 - [105] Originally by: Dex Nederland Since you use the sports example, perhaps you occasional enjoy walks in the park? There may be people playing sports there. What if they throw you the ball and expect you to play at that point? No - "well then you are missing the point of the park, it is a place for sport." You would disagree there is more to the park than sport. So by this argument, if I enjoy walks in the park, I should be 100% safe when walking in said park in the middle of the night? What if some parks have become zones of turf wars between rival gangs, should I expect said parks to still be 100% safe? So when thugs will start chasing me, should I yell to them: "guys, guys, not in the park!" EvE is not being advertised as hard-core combat game, but it is not advertized as Animal Crossing either. The game is being built around the idea of taking responsibility for your own action.
Hurs Sokira Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District	Posted - 2008.04.30 03:55:00 - [106] And while we are on the topic of personal responsibility and we have Devs listening to the thread... Please, please make standings count this time in most of players' inteactions with enviroment. The beauty of EVE is that most actions have far-reaching consequences. Standings is a perfect mechanism to ensure those consequences happen. Right now they are being used very little, for mundane stuff, like LPs and refining efficiency. Each station, whole constellations seem exactly the same, there is absolutely to difference if I dock at Caldari Navy station or at Federal Navy one, there is no compelling difference to pick one over the other. Make standings count for everything: docking permission and fees, taxes, amount of bounties, clone charges, etc. etc. Make standings affected by PvP. Kill too many Minmatar NPCs and/or Republic-loyal pilots, and you cannot travel to Rens to buy cheap modules anymore, you cannot dock at Minmatar stations without paying a hefty bribe (affected by Criminal Connections skill). On the other hand, Amarr stations greet you with open hands and cheaper services. Make standings collected during Factional Warfare play in Ambulation, high standings can allow pilots rent offices in Navy stations, that otherwise be inaccessible to "civilians". People with similar standings will start congregating in certain systems, there will be a sense of camaraderie, players will feel that people around them share the same background and they will interact more. This will bring an incredible level of depth and immersion in the world of EvE. Do not waste this opportunity.
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2008.04.30 04:16:00 - [107] It sounds exactly right to me. Structure = provides place for casual players to PVP and the whole "half-way house" between empire hugging and 0.0 sounds like A Good Thing as well. I do see longer term issues possibly arising from how they implement this (persistence of penalties/rewards for example) but provided this is out in the game world and properly dynamic I don't see why it has to be like BG. EVE RELATED CONTENT
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2008.04.30 06:44:00 - [108] Originally by: Sakura Nihil This is going to be EVE's version of battlegrounds. I said this eons ago. Stop using my words! "The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of ~~gold~~crap"
Ellyra Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.04.30 06:52:00 - [109] I'm only two months into the game and can't wait for this to happen. It's always fun to be part of something huge. and CCP seems to have thought this out for sometime so i'm optimistic. I'm posting a sugestion: The event that sparks the war should be Gallente terrorists nuking the Jita 4-4 station. Just imagine it, the thousands of victims and billions of ISK damages :) ____________________________________________ Start every day with a smile and get it over with
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.04.30 06:56:00 - [110] Originally by: Andrue But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. Just because someone doesn't think a certain way doesn't mean that they shouldn't be subject to the same rules and risks as everyone else. I don't care how carebears think or how the non-carebears think. I only care about how I think, and I will interact with you according to my rules. You of course interact with me according to your rules. That's the way this game works.
Najenna Minmatar Caldari Deep Space Ventures Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.04.30 07:56:00 - [111] Originally by: CCP Greyscale I was thinking about making a Phantom Tollbooth reference here, but I'm guessing nobody else would have the first idea what I was talking about... Regardless, the information you're working on, while fundamentally correct, has gone through a number of filters which make teasing from it the precise mechanical details an inexact science at best. Most importantly, the intent of this sort of interview is generally to impart information to non-players, and thus everything has to be translated into Layman by both interviewer and interviewee. Trying to translate it back into Player is the equivalent of the old English->German->English trick, in that while in the theory the fundamental meaning is conserved, in practice you terminate Kauderwelsch frequently above with a bundle. Inevitably some people are going to be disappointed with anything we do; hopefully more details will be available in the very near future in native Player so you guys can get your teeth into it. In the meantime though, let me just say that "WE ARE NOT MAKING EVE BATTLEGROUNDS" was a founding principle of the design. The fact that people are managing to derive "omg fw is eve battlegrounds" from this interview is indicative of nothing but the fact that generalist interviews are not a great source of detailed information, and that our players have active imaginations, both of which constitute known knowns, to quote His Rumsfeldness Not to sound stupid but can you please put all of that into laymens terms please you used alot of big words and you actually confused me more than help me. CCP GreyScale Hits your brain for a "Wrecking Migraine".
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.30 08:00:00 - [112] Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Andrue But carebears do not think like that. That's the problem! When will you hardcore types ever get it into your heads that carebears do not think like you. I don't understand why carebears (I mean people who want to play with no risk, not miners or mission-runners necessarily) would play a game built around the idea of risk, non-consensual PvP, and the possibility of the loss of months worth of progress. I don't like sports, so I don't play sports games. I don't play sports games and then whine about having to throw and catch balls. Why do you have to understand them? The are present in Eve. They represent the majority of people in this world. Millions of people play solo computer games, watch TV and read fiction. None of those things 'achieve' or 'risk' anything. They are done for fun and relaxation quite often as a change from their daily job which does allow them to achieve something and take risks. I wasn't asking for Eve to change. Merely making a suggestion based on what I've read that FW is supposed to be doing. If FW is the next 'big thing' for everyone in Eve then clearly podding has to be part of it. But in at least a couple of interviews it has been said that it is supposed to help the carebears join in PvP. For that to happen I just think that there has to be some safe, fluffy area where carebears can learn the ropes. When you're teaching someone to swim you don't take them out to sea and throw them naked off a liner into the middle of the Atlantic. You take them to a local swimming pool, put floatation devices on them and let them paddle around in the shallow end. Personally I don't need mollycoddling. I have an alt that is quite happy to do PvP. I don't find it particularly entertaining since it's mostly waiting while trying to hunt someone down but I can do it. Unlike you, however, I can acecpt that other people think differently to me and I can understand their needs and feelings. Eve could be revitalised by getting more carebears to evolve into PvP. If FW can do that it'll be the best thing to hit this game since the 16th of February 2004 -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.04.30 09:50:00 - [113] Originally by: Andrue I wasn't asking for Eve to change. Merely making a suggestion based on what I've read that FW is supposed to be doing. If FW is the next 'big thing' for everyone in Eve then clearly podding has to be part of it. But in at least a couple of interviews it has been said that it is supposed to help the carebears join in PvP. What currently happens is that there are several degrees of carebearism. 1. The uber carebear who would never pvp even if his losses was full reimbursed and paid to do it. These guys are Sim City players basically. 2. The med range carebear who is happy to do pvp as long as his losses are re-imbursed and compensated for time wasted. Otherwise he plays the game Sim City style 3. The "convertable" carebear who wants to pvp but cannot be bothered with people logging off, WCSing, nanoing, blobfest and other "pvp" features. He lacks time for that stuff so spends his time carebearing. There are more categories, but the three above are for the most part cover what we have in eve. It is only Category 3 that will join FW. The other two are simply not going to join it. In addition, a lot of pvpers from alliances will be joining FW for the promise of lagless, blobless pvp where, as the rumors go, that NPC's will balance sides out. Since Alliance warfare is not for everbody, this will seem very attractive for people to get a alt in or even join with their mains. I might get my alt's corp in as well, depending on hows its implemented. In short, FW will attract as many people from the carebear community as lvl5's do, but it will attract a huge amount of the pvp community in my opinion, who are looking for fights. -- Billion Isk Mission
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.04.30 10:00:00 - [114] Originally by: CCP Greyscale Trying to translate it back into Player is the equivalent of the old English->German->English trick, in that while in the theory the fundamental meaning is conserved, in practice you terminate Kauderwelsch frequently above with a bundle. Heheheh - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Sakura Nihil Stimulus	Posted - 2008.04.30 11:20:00 - [115] Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: Sakura Nihil This is going to be EVE's version of battlegrounds. I said this eons ago. Stop using my words! Its all good . Also, random thought regarding FW - is Ambulation being released with it, or has it been pushed back to the release after next? Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk i'm not a very good gambler
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.30 11:59:00 - [116] Edited by: Andrue on 30/04/2008 12:00:26 Originally by: Lord WarATron In short, FW will attract as many people from the carebear community as lvl5's do, but it will attract a huge amount of the pvp community in my opinion, who are looking for fights. Quoting from an interview with Hilmar, the CEO of CCP: "Beyond expansions we are told that in this coming summer, the dev team will be looking "aggressively" at the idea of story-based factional warfare that would see players be given PvE quests that would lead players into PvP. The hope is that this will get more players more excited about joining the living, breathing political world of Corps, PvP, territory control and more." If taking part in FW means risking gankers and podding for bugger all rewards in low-sec (ie;L5 missions) then no-one is going to be fooled. No amount of reward (or at least no reward that can possibly be accomodated within the Eve universe) will persuade carebears to move to low-sec. CCP have to address the perceived risk factor, at least at first. -- (Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
ShadowMaiden Amarr Metal Machine	Posted - 2008.04.30 14:33:00 - [117] Warning: Side-effects of Expansions and Patches may include speculation, jumping to conclusions, over-analysis, misunderstandings, confusion, unwarranted assumptions, ten-page forum threads, baseless concerns, undue panic, virtual stampedes, threadnaughts, premature account cancellations, and hoarding of materials and isk. I wish I was a 3ft Doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

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.

I know it's my own fault,BUT THATS NOT THE POINT!

I know it's my own fault,
BUT THATS NOT THE POINT!