Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Liamn
Atrum Deus Vult
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 18:45:00 -
[241] - Quote
Some of the best fights in EVE have taken place in FW space; and that is what most pilots who remain hope for. Many of us PVP out of our own income GÇô to support a war with PVE demands . . . that has resulted in FW becoming stale (even Sasawong will get burnt out some day). It would be nice to be rewarded for the PVP efforts. We would then be able to have more (fun) fights. I have seen people come and go in FW. Most who have stayed do not want anything to do with null sec: politics, sovereignty, blobs, etc. So any GÇÿfixesGÇÖ that sponsor or encourages those things are a version of 0.0 lite, and will ultimately result in FW space becoming GÇô well look at the rest of low sec today.
0.0 Lite versions GÇô not good: 1. The whole consequence idea (who came up with this kind of crap anyway) - Complete station lockout - LP community pool 2. Make it more consistent with null sec territory
Stuff I donGÇÖt care about: 1. Replace occupancy with sovereignty 2. Complex Changes GÇô I would just trash the whole thing
The Datacore thing: 1. Still wondering how did that make it into a FW forum 2. If anything, provide a new datacore (via FW LP) that has 100% of obtaining a t2 cruiser or battleship bpc. This would be great if the LP payout changes to a PVP reward system (as opposed to the existing complex-type system) |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
159
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 19:09:00 -
[242] - Quote
Liamn wrote:Some of the best fights in EVE have taken place in FW space; and that is what most pilots who remain hope for. Many of us PVP out of our own income GÇô to support a war with PVE demands . . . that has resulted in FW becoming stale (even Sasawong will get burnt out some day). It would be nice to be rewarded for the PVP efforts. We would then be able to have more (fun) fights. I have seen people come and go in FW. Most who have stayed do not want anything to do with null sec: politics, sovereignty, blobs, etc. So any GÇÿfixesGÇÖ that sponsor or encourages those things are a version of 0.0 lite, and will ultimately result in FW space becoming GÇô well look at the rest of low sec today.
0.0 Lite versions GÇô not good: 1. The whole consequence idea (who came up with this kind of crap anyway) - Complete station lockout - LP community pool 2. Make it more consistent with null sec territory
Stuff I donGÇÖt care about: 1. Replace occupancy with sovereignty 2. Complex Changes GÇô I would just trash the whole thing
The Datacore thing: 1. Still wondering how did that make it into a FW forum 2. If anything, provide a new datacore (via FW LP) that has 100% of obtaining a t2 cruiser or battleship bpc. This would be great if the LP payout changes to a PVP reward system (as opposed to the existing complex-type system) Few things 1) The proposal is to get LP from PvP and plexing 2) The FW community asked for consequences so there was a point to us fighting 3) You talk about how FW is a drain on your income, yet complain about the datacore proposal which would give another FW LP item to be sold on the market for ISK and/or a way to reduce the cost of building T2ships for FW members...
Fix Faction Warfare CCP!!!
Hans Jagerblitzen - Voted in for CSM 7 |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:53:00 -
[243] - Quote
Control Bunker Suggestive cosmetic and size change of this object sounds great. However, its purpose could be re-imagined with DUST 514.
Control Bunker would be a universal beacon indicating where the frontline of battle is. Upon sovereignty transition, Militia are alerted of this solarsystem's presumable intense activity and so Militia migrate to this solarsystem, fueling the war: intensifying the battle. Control Bunker would be the solarsystem's sovereignty transition threshold, too. This means upon attacking it the system begins a count-down timer and triggers DUST 514 'Quick Game' selection. Space victories and planet victories decrease the countdown timer contributing to a faster result. Control Bunker would create a Military-class Cynosural Field for Militia to Portal-Jump (long distance) or Micro-Jump (short distance). (Classes of Cynosural Fields: Civilian-class (invulnerable), Independant-class (player's & Generator's), Covert-class (limitations, player's), Military-class (auto-activated for Militia). NPC Incursions can intrude making for an interesting additional threat. This would layer additional objectives in claiming a solarsystem via the Control Bunker and jam all Cynosural Fields. (Objectives: remove Sansha's Nation & attack Control Bunker: transition timer begins)
Summery: + Faction Warfare EVE-DUST Link suggested on Fanfest keynote is totally agreed upon by me. + Control Bunker is the indication of a persevering battle within that solarsystem. This tells Militia players to get in this system before failure. + NPC Incursions would allow for easier solarsystem sovereignty capture but longer because of additional layer of Militia objectives against the Incursion faction, which is Sansha's Nation.
Militia Services
Quote:'Upon ship-loss as a Militant, your shipline is automatically replaced with an economized (TECH1) Navy Issue version of Combat Shiplines or Attack Shiplines. Your reimbursed ship-class depends on your Militia Rank. This service also includes economized (TECH1) Navy Issue modules prompt with Fitting options for your role. This service cannot be abused nor accumulated. If you lose your ship again within time, you will not be reimbursed. This is to maintain finances so it's your own fault if you haven't learned after your failures!'
Note: Faction Warfare Militia reimbursements cannot be resold on the Market nor should they be reprocessed.
'If you have no use for this reimbursed ship you may trade it with your fellow Militia capsuleers.' Militia Services support your war efforts. It necessarily prolongs any solarsystem warfare activity, and planning ahead by relocating Medical Clone is dire for rapid response. A militia fleet can co-ordinate this, which could easily be your empire's winning ticket. Enemies would do the same in adjacent solarsystems locking Militia into battle.
- Militant Manufacturers would craft to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and a Navy Issue BPC to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank. - Militant Traders would buy-sell to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and ISK to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank. - Militant Harvestors/miners would harvest to trade resources for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points. This makes 'Militia Agents' offer Manufacturers a craft order for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points. This also increases Rank. - (new) Militant Conveyors (Smuggler/Transporter) can accomplish 'Militia Agent' missions in importing or smuggling contemporary Solarsystem bonus for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and sub-sequential Standings reimbursement. Constricted by Concord and empire customs. This also increases Rank.
::'Their roles contribute to sustaining the local Constellation battle efforts of your Militia's combatants. Loyalty Points can be decidedly donated to upgrade solarsystems, as the Fanfest keynote suggests, as well as improve Constellation-wide Militia services.'
Summery: + Clone respawn planning. + Militia Rank-based ship reimbursement. (inc. pre-set Selection of modules for your role) + Focusing combat activity. + Giving Militia roles for non-combatant players.
Faction Standing: Suggested by original post, I deny the standing loss of players. Remember this is a sandbox game. Your decisions affect players, and you decided to offer your military support to your faction. However, there still can be a way! The principle of Black Ops comes to mind. By becoming a hidden identity no-one knows who you are, and so you would not lose Standings! (Check this thread about Clandestine Shiplines)
Summery: Black Ops can deny Standings loss but at an increased risk of friendly-fire death. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:53:00 -
[244] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:14:00 -
[245] - Quote
The following is my personal feedback and is not intended to be the direction of the thread, however feel free to use the Like button or comment on my ideas freely.
First and foremost, the changes are good over all, but in my opinion the balancing methods chosen are not ideal.
LP Reward System: From my understanding the updated reward system provides both discounts and increases in LP gains solely through control of territory. Additionally, it is specifically mentioned that CCP wants to provide more benefit to the ranking system. In response, I offer the following changes in regards to the LP reward system:
1) Provide Increased LP Gains based on militia rank
- Reason: LP is essentially the primary method of pay for militia. In real life, military pay is based on rank. As you increase in rank, you gain bonuses to your LP gain.
2) LP Cost Reduction Remains Tied to Territory Controlled
- Reason: The more territory controlled by a faction, the more resources they will have. In turn this equates into more assets and being able to offer those assets to their militants at lower cost.
To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.
Participation Penalties (Standings Hits): As in stands now there is one sole reason that I will not participate in factional warfare because of. That is because when you participate in factional warfare and kill an enemy... You lose standings with their faction. Believe me, I agree this does make perfect sense. However as a game mechanic I think it should be removed. My reasons are as follows:
- Factional Warfare is supposed to be an introduction to PVP. However new players are not educated about standings hits and in some cases do not understand the standings system at all. A new player could in turn find themselves in a position of being unable to succeed at the combat but still be penalized for participating thus creating a situation where new players can wind up in a perpetual torrent of fail that could eventually wind up in destruction of their assets even after leaving factional warfare. That's not a great way to bring new players in.
- As an existing player, my standings are precious. I do not want to participate in a type of PVP that will adversely affect my ability to operate in any part of space once removing myself from that activity. This is why I do not participate in piracy and suicide ganks. It is also why I am deterred from factional warfare, despite a massive interest in it.
- The only real way to recover standings lost through factional warfare penalties is to grind it off using the mission running system. This system is something players such as myself absolutely abhore. The fact that I would have to participate in mission running to clean up from a PVP activity in order to be mobile while not part of the faction is ridiculous, in my opinion
In conclusion, I believe that standings penalties for engaging faction warfare players and NPC's should be removed. There should not be a hidden penalty for participating. Especially when the feature is supposed to be friendly to new players. [ [ALDEB] Aldebaran Foundation (Recruiting Industry & PvE Players) [HISEC] ] |
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:52:00 -
[246] - Quote
Rimase wrote:Faction Standing:Suggested by another post, I deny the standing loss of players. Remember this is a sandbox game. Your decisions affect players, and you decided to offer your military support to your faction. However, there still can be a way! The principle of Black Ops comes to mind. By becoming a hidden identity no-one knows who you are, and so you would not lose Standings! (Check this thread about Clandestine Shiplines). However, since you're on no-one's side, you can be targetted by anyone including your friendlies! Summery: Black Ops can deny Standings loss but at an increased risk of friendly-fire death.
Your use of the word deny is a little bizarre at points. I do however understand that you are saying you do not support my idea to remove standings penalties for killing Faction Warfare targets. I would like to offer a counter-point and see if it changes your mind.
In the following examples, please note that I am going off of information provided by EVE University in a written medium and have not actually reproduced the effects myself. The following provided quotes were located on the EVE University website here.
EVE University wrote: Killing/podding a player who is a member of a NPC FW corporation If you kill/pod a player in an NPC FW corporation, then you standing with that corporation will decrease. Your standing with that player's FW faction will remain unchanged.
E.g. A member of Thukk U kills a member of the 24th Imperial Crusade (Amarr NPC corp). The Thukk U pilot will lose standing with the 24th Imperial Crusade, but not with the Amarr faction.
EVE University wrote: Killing/podding a player who is a member of a player FW corporation If you kill/pod a player in an player FW corporation, then all standings will remain unchanged.
The above two quotes outline how flawed the standings loss system in factional warfare already is. In my opinion, it should either be all or nothing and personally I think adding more standings loss to the system would be bad. The fact of the matter is standings loss is a penalty. Penalizing players for participating is a bad thing. Especially when the risk factor is that regardless of standing you can't enter the enemy space without retaliation by their navies because you are a registered soldier of the enemy.
In addition to the above, being a member of factional warfare puts you at risk of combat every time you undock. These in my opinion fulfill the role of penalties well enough. I understand where you are coming from by saying that you make a choice to participate in factional warfare. I agree. However most participants do not become educated about the standings loss unless another participant happens to tell them in advance, or they notice it from actively participating. The fact that it is not clearly outlined that you will lose standings for participating in combat is reason enough to remove the penalty, or at least notify people of the risks and what the risk entails.
IE, "You may lose standings for destroying enemy targets. This can cause you to be unable to enter their space without being attacked even after withdrawing from factional warfare.")
Personally, I think a disclaimer like (which currently tells the truth) put onto a feature designed to bring new players into PVP would actually deter them from using the feature. Why? Because they don't know if they'll like PVP.
I would like to mention that if anyone has suicide ganked someone in an NPC corp before, they may have noticed that killing a player in *ANY* npc corp gives you a standings penalty (ship and pod). This is the mechanic that is causing standings loss in factional warfare. I'm just asking they remove this mechanic for registered factional warfare participants.
Now, in relation to your "Black Ops" role I understand where you are coming from. What you are essentially asking for is an uniformed soldier in EVE. Now in real life most countries that recognize the Geneva Convention consider an uniformed soldier to be a terrorist (or a soldier that has a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (Source: Part I, Article 4, 4.1.2).
Now after my previous comment on the Geneva Convention the obvious response to me is "The UN doesn't exist in EVE!". I agree. However, CONCORD does exist. If you read up on CONCORD you will learn that they are a peace-keeping force formed by the four major empires jointly. A proverbial UN. Thus, from my opinion an un-registered 'Black Ops' soldier would be considered a war crime and punishable by CONCORD interference.
On top of all of that, if a soldier chooses to operate free from the uniform, the enemy will no longer identify them as a soldier and as an individual. At this point it becomes acceptable for them to mark that individual as a criminal in their territory. Why? Because they are actively engaging in combat against them as an individual. Thus, standings loss as a mechanic actually makes sense when you do this.
That's all I have. Thank you for reading. [ [ALDEB] Aldebaran Foundation (Recruiting Industry & PvE Players) [HISEC] ] |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2219
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 14:32:00 -
[247] - Quote
Awesome feedback guys and gals! Keep it coming, I haven't been posting much but I'm monitoring the thread and taking notes. Tomorrow is the day CSM7 officially takes office and can begin our work, and I'll finally receive internal forum access.
First order of business will be some triage, assessing what is and isn't set in stone at this point, which features CCP has committed to, and what features they are still working out the balancing issues for. This will help me deliver much more focused feedback on the areas that are still up in the air. Efficiency is the key here, we have a limited amount of time to get ideas in to them.
Please help me out by sending some mails to your corpmates, explain to them that RIGHT NOW is the time to be speaking up about FW changes, if you want to be heard by CCP. May is not far off at all, so take some time to write some *words* and tell me what you think about the package described at Fan Fest!
Please do not hesitate to approach me in-game or send my an EVEmail if there's an issue you want to discuss in detail. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details.
Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words! |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
314
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:03:00 -
[248] - Quote
Aidan Patrick wrote:
To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.
The main problem will not be people switching sides it will be new people joining the winning side and no new people joining the losing side. The losing side will also likely have more people leaving than the winning side.
It happens already when there are no militia wide consequences. Adding the consequences will just make this happen faster.
People should be given some sort of reward for doing plexes directly. But the members of the militia who do not do anything for the occupancy war should not get direct benefits. There should be some militia and neweden wide indirect effects but not substantial direct benefits to the whole militia.
Right now offensive major plexes pay somewhat ok in tags. But the defensive plexes pay nothing and the minor offensive plexes do not pay enough to replace the ammo you use to kill the rat.
Overall the plexing game needs to be made fun and challenging. Once the occupancy war is made fun and challenging then winning the war will be a worthy goal.
You can always ask "why do you want to do that?" with any game. Null sec alliances try to win territory! Why do they want to do that? So they can make isk! Why do they want to do that? So they can fly bigger ships! Why do they want to do that? So they can win more territory!
Once being a good occupancy plexxer is generally considered something to be proud of, then fw will be fixed. Until then it will remain broken. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.04 07:21:00 -
[249] - Quote
Many people don't seem to understand that faction war is designed to be an everlasting war and therefore cannot be won. If CCP implements severe and long lasting consequences that have a big impact to the 'losing' faction, pilots of this faction unfortunately tend to just quit faction war. Which leaves the 'victor' without targets to shoot at. Those consequences should therefore not be morale breaking or spoiling the fun of defending / fighting back. Balancing this will be a delicate job.
Nullsec is a completely different story. Sov wars in nullsec are meant to have severe consequences. Losing territory permanently and wiping out the enemy are meant to happen. Faction War was never meant to be this way, and therefore nullsec mechanics are not applicable to it. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
13
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 11:37:00 -
[250] - Quote
Let's destroy the Trade Capital! Militia being able to discourage trade at 'trade capitals'
I suspect Militia may bring about plundering markets, changing economies where players have to relocate their goods for nominal value. Sounds oh-so cool making trade capitals fall and spreading players around the universe to different markets. Trade capitals are well-known, and so the human mind is to interact with others. Where there's more people there is more fun: Jita 4-4 has 1000+ occupants.
How would war effect market? Solarsystem market taxes can immediately become so high to financially support local battles. This turns station's 'civilian market' into military support, supporting resupply of war's finances and services.
Mentioned at Fanfest, stations may become owned by players or player-corporations. Not sure exactly. Their Militia contribution by authorizing and applying station services and finances to focus local Constellation warfare, though this has to be a well-thought decision. A decision like this could destroy the station's reputation of being a 'trade capital', and so it'd be likely that neighbouring successful stations will reach bottle-neck mutual decisions, immediately turning the tide of a late battle.
This questions Faction warfare gameplay (new) For this to begin, the impending war must prompt all locals. This is done by Militia defiantly persevering a Constellation into 'peak activity', from which then a whole Constellation becomes a war siren. This tells Militia players where the battle is at to focusing combat activity even greater and shakes-up the local market.
How would this work, exactly? There may be a limit of active 'alerts' in Constellations like there are only a few Sansha's Nation Incursions. This gives stations if ever managed by one single capsuleer or corporation the option to have it support local warfare ('Militia station' where they're resupplied and respawn freely). However, this makes that player a Militia target until the local Constellation becomes safe. How are Constellations triggered?? Most highest warfare activity within Constellation's solarsystems.
What are the bonuses of 'militarized stations'?
- Militia are supported with additional 'respawn locations' using Immortal-grade Clones like those of DUST players & Fanfest trailer.
:: "Imagine the military application!" :: "The power they would have. They would be--" :: "Immortal."
- Militia are supported of station's finances and services, bringing Militia-class (T1 Improved) ship-loss reimbursements and and free services. This keeps Militia capsuleers incentives in correspondent to the responsible risks they've chosen and accepted.
- They deny enemy docking the station even sometime after local Constellation faction warfare.
What are the consequences of 'militarized stations'?
- The player who 'militarized' the station will become an enemy Militia's target even though they haven't signed-up for Militia. You may convert the station back to a 'civilized station' to remove this affliction though if you already signed-up for Militia there is no point in trying to avoid. This is to allow enemy Militia to respectfully hunt you down if you are not a registered Militant.
- The impose an additional, unavoidable 'militia tax' on players sub-sequently placing market orders, selling, buying, using services. This is the instigation of this post: Militia can destroy player-selected 'trade capitals'! This disproves trade hubs and spreads players across the universe particularly away from Jita 4-4.
- (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?):--áCome on, CCP. Make EVE really ******* interesting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
|
Uppsy Daisy
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
101
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 15:53:00 -
[251] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Aidan Patrick wrote:
To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.
The main problem will not be people switching sides it will be new people joining the winning side and no new people joining the losing side. The losing side will also likely have more people leaving than the winning side. It happens already when there are no militia wide consequences. Adding the consequences will just make this happen faster. People should be given some sort of reward for doing plexes directly. But the members of the militia who do not do anything for the occupancy war should not get direct benefits. There should be some militia and neweden wide indirect effects but not substantial direct benefits to the whole militia. Right now offensive major plexes pay somewhat ok in tags. But the defensive plexes pay nothing and the minor offensive plexes do not pay enough to replace the ammo you use to kill the rat. Overall the plexing game needs to be made fun and challenging. Once the occupancy war is made fun and challenging then winning the war will be a worthy goal. You can always ask "why do you want to do that?" with any game. Null sec alliances try to win territory! Why do they want to do that? So they can make isk! Why do they want to do that? So they can fly bigger ships! Why do they want to do that? So they can win more territory! Once being a good occupancy plexxer is generally considered something to be proud of, then fw will be fixed. Until then it will remain broken.
People will join the losing side because the supply of that side's datacores will dry up, driving up prices of that whole races T2 economy.
e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
60
|
Posted - 2012.04.06 16:20:00 -
[252] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:People will join the losing side because the supply of that side's datacores will dry up, driving up prices of that whole races T2 economy.
e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores. Guess your CCP main has been revealed Uppsy .. that was what Soundwave's masterplan is, almost verbatim
Here is what is more likely to happen: - Since CCP has moved from FoTM to FoTY paradigm you'll essentially have several years in which a faction, whose ships are out of style, putter along with a skeleton crew. What few die-hards remain can make a healthy profit but then they/we are likely to stay in order to shoot others in the face so 'meh'. - T2 prices of that faction will probably spike, but then T3 are continually dropping and with POS/Industry changes likely to drop even further .. T3 > T2 .. betcha that will be the case even after CCP revises the T2/T3 relationship. Additionally, cores are primarily used for invention whereas BPO's handle most of the 'expensive' production (ie. ships = only cores with specific faction tags). - CCP new found love for new ships/modules will further erode the need for a given factions T2 ships. - Etc.
In conclusion: The ONLY way that it will play out as envisioned by the resident in a Russian prison (yes, still waiting for the damn reparation blog, Soundwave!) is if datacores are divided among the various factions and their use is spread out to other areas (like T3, named mods, Pirate hulls etc.) so that no single faction can be left to rot as it were.
Do you really think that CCP are willing to go that extra mile to make their supposed 'FW fix' work ... ? Personally doubt it, they'll probably just up the drop rates in exploration sites to pick up any slack when emo-ragers spam the forums about missing cores.
Note: You may have guessed that my faith in CCP is .. hmmm, how to put it nicely ... limited |
David Caldera
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 11:41:00 -
[253] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores.
That may be true, but in order to draw in new players, you may need a more obvious incentive to get them to join the losing faction.
I don't know, maybe you could get more LP from killing war targets or plexing if you are on the losing side?
|
2D34DLY4U
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 12:17:00 -
[254] - Quote
How about a passive LP income for all pilots enrolled in FW?
Soundwave's comment about partially moving the passive datacore farm to FW could then be implemented with less impact.
It's a small thing but could bring more people in... |
Uppsy Daisy
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
101
|
Posted - 2012.04.07 19:16:00 -
[255] - Quote
Who is soundwave? |
David Caldera
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.08 08:40:00 -
[256] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:Who is soundwave? I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?
|
Zoe Decay
Temporal Logistics
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.08 09:44:00 -
[257] - Quote
Rukia Taika wrote:Muad 'dib wrote:Not docking in enemy system stations is a huge mistake. the rest looks pretty fun I like the idea of not being able to dock at an enemy station. after all you are at war with said faction. why would you allow someone like that to dock up all safe like. yes this will affect trade hub prices in the area but it comes down say your a United stares Marine and you are at war with Iran, why would Iran let you stay at their hotel when you do not control it? as an example i mean no offense
If that's the case then you should be allowed in hi sec with negative security rating AS long as you stay in your space. Kind of how pirates really were. Actually a thought occurred to me. You could be commissioned to kill other players from any Npc corp of the enemy as well. |
Velicia Tuoro
Light Speed Interactive The Mockers AO
75
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 14:59:00 -
[258] - Quote
David Caldera wrote:Uppsy Daisy wrote:Who is soundwave? I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?
He's lead game designer.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=author&p=CCP%20Soundwave Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2223
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:14:00 -
[259] - Quote
David Caldera wrote:Uppsy Daisy wrote:Who is soundwave? I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?
No, the presenter who gave the FW presentation was CCP Ytterbium.
CCP Soundwave is the lead game designer for EVE Online.
I urge all FW enthusiasts to take 15 minutes and watch this interview:
http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve-online/interviews/inferno-part-one
Soundwave talks a great deal about Faction Warfare and his vision for it, and especially his willingness to "see it break". He appears to be just fine with the idea of meta-gaming in Faction Warfare, and price wars giving third parties reasons to enlist characters and manage the conflict.
Should Faction Warfare be "breakable" ?? Should one side be able to overwhelm the other? Do you want market reasons for pilots to get involved with FW??
Please listen the interview and share your feedback here in this thread, as this is how the Lead Designer sees the future of FW, for better or for worse.... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
63
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 15:35:00 -
[260] - Quote
Soundwave bashing. Best bashing.
He is what happens when reality-show meets corporate reality, a person whose qualifications are being a known face and having been with CCP for a prolonged period of time. Perfect in a community manager position, but as lead designer?
ISK is not a balancing factor, heard that before? It works for/in null with moons/space because the numbers are so insanely high, but how the hell can anyone think it will work with the peanuts and <200 actives that is FW. I have to say, I don't envy the hill you have climb Hans .. going to be an arduous task to get through that addled brain of his. If your position requires you to communicate directly with it, may I suggest you ask CCP for some sort of hazard pay to help cover the shrink bills that will surely follow. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2223
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:12:00 -
[261] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Soundwave bashing. Best bashing.
While this is a public forum and everyone's free to share their thoughts, these kind of comments aren't very helpful. I posted the interview so people could post specific feedback on his proposed direction for Faction Warfare, not so everyone can call him an idiot. It's fine that you feel that way, I need to know why you feel that way.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
63
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 16:52:00 -
[262] - Quote
Where to start ..
Because he thought that Gold AmmoGäó would be an awesome feature to add to Nex .. until winds changed and swept his opinion along with it (Populism) Because he thought that FW would be better if high-sec navies were removed .. affecting primarily noobs who pushed the end-of-tutorial button and having no impact on FW as a whole (Ignorance) Because he thinks that making datacores an FW item will act as an auto-balancer for the militias .. ignoring the fact that Eve is highly FoTM/FoTY oriented and that the datacore intensive T2 items are semi-rarely used (Stupidity) Because he believes that introducing null mechanics to lowsec/FW will somehow help .. ignoring the fact that a lot of the mechanics work in null due to numbers, bubbles et al. and that null itself has been fed up with many of the things he wants to use as solutions (EHP grinds, really!?!) Because he has yet to deliver the promised blog detailing their thought processes, design goals and so forth in regards to FW .. the promise was made on his behalf as a Hail Mary move after CCP stood the FW round table up at last years FF
Not a big fan his as you can probably hear[:)
Here is hoping that they manage to make null worth it again so I can justify keeping the client patched, because the quite frankly random changes they want to introduce as fixes to FW are like giving CPR to a carcass on beach. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1495
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 21:25:00 -
[263] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Where to start ..
Because he thought that Gold AmmoGäó would be an awesome feature to add to Nex .. until winds changed and swept his opinion along with it (Populism) Because he thought that FW would be better if high-sec navies were removed .. affecting primarily noobs who pushed the end-of-tutorial button and having no impact on FW as a whole (Ignorance) Because he thinks that making datacores an FW item will act as an auto-balancer for the militias .. ignoring the fact that Eve is highly FoTM/FoTY oriented and that the datacore intensive T2 items are semi-rarely used (Stupidity) Because he believes that introducing null mechanics to lowsec/FW will somehow help .. ignoring the fact that a lot of the mechanics work in null due to numbers, bubbles et al. and that null itself has been fed up with many of the things he wants to use as solutions (EHP grinds, really!?!) Because he has yet to deliver the promised blog detailing their thought processes, design goals and so forth in regards to FW .. the promise was made on his behalf as a Hail Mary move after CCP stood the FW round table up at last years FF
Not a big fan his as you can probably hear[:)
Here is hoping that they manage to make null worth it again so I can justify keeping the client patched, because the quite frankly random changes they want to introduce as fixes to FW are like giving CPR to a carcass on beach.
Come on now, tell us how you really feel.
I'll leave the rest of it alone for now, but I will point out the obvious on a couple of points you raised.
The shift in Data Core aquisition affects me strongly, as one of my main sources of income is T2 invention/production and I have a healthy supply of Research Agents slaving away to try and meet my needs.
Of course, they fall short, and Data Cores often have to be purchased from the markets. Thats rather the point actually.
Right now, nobody really cares what happens in FW, but I can tell you this... if it becomes the main source for Data Cores I (and many others) will care a great deal. It would absolutely be in my best interests to install an alt (or perhaps even my main) in FW. If the largest rewards came from active participation and destruction of players from the opposing faction then that would be my focus.
Truthfully, it would be my focus anyway. I have always been primarily involved on the PVP side of things deep in Null, but for others who have only dabbled in PVP before it would be a strong motivation to give it a try. Greed can be a powerful motivator.
You can also believe that if the supply of T2 vessels becomes compromised (for certain racial ships) as a result, there will be considerable interest from the larger PVP (Null Sec) community as well.
It is this type of motivation of players outside the current FW community that they are trying to inspire, to make FW stronger and healthier than ever before.... to make it actually matter to the community at large for a change.
This also trickles over into your other point about Null sec mechanics not working due to numbers. CCP can't plan for the FW player base to stay as small as it is. If that were the case they wouldn't bother iterating on it at all. They are actively working to make that number grow significantly, and must plan accordingly. Anything else would be irresponsible and short sighted.
A simplified form of Null Sec mechanics (while not perfect) would certain work far better than the current system... and has the advantage of extensive play testing. It also makes sense to familiarize players with the mechanics involved as many will likely move on from FW to Null eventually.
Of course, when those mechanics are looked at again in Null any changes would likely also find their way over to FW as they are related. Meaning FW is much more likely to be iterated on promptly than it would be if it were simply a small closed independant system.
I know change can be scary, but sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture my friend. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
David Caldera
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.09 22:42:00 -
[264] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:No, the presenter who gave the FW presentation was CCP Ytterbium.
CCP Soundwave is the lead game designer for EVE Online. Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
Also, is there a transcript for that interview somewhere? i can't seem to get it to work.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
320
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 03:03:00 -
[265] - Quote
2D34DLY4U wrote:How about a passive LP income for all pilots enrolled in FW? Soundwave's comment about partially moving the passive datacore farm to FW could then be implemented with less impact. It's a small thing but could bring more people in...
Because anyone with the standings can join fw having any sort of passive income is not going to make FW better. It will boost its numbers but will not make it any better.
As far as the datacore idea balancing one side steamrolling the other - I think things like that can be used but they need to be done right. If they are given passively or given for missions then you will just have alts collecting the datacores or farming the missions. In other words all the pvp will effectively end after one side gets the huge numbers advantage and we will only have mission running and alts.
Its even Possible that the winning militia will manipulate this. So lets say caldari steamrolls gallente like they did before. But this time they actually get advantages so its even worse and they stay in power. Then the caldari militia which will be much larger will perhaps start putting thier known alts into gallente so they can collect the datacores. Gallente pilots that are not "blue" to the caldari militia would have a harder time to collect the datacores.
Again just to be clear I think these sorts of things like datacores and unique lp items can be helpful to self correct but if the benefits to winning are too high then one side will still get steamrolled and the other militia will just farm the other militias datacores and lp.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
665
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 03:21:00 -
[266] - Quote
i somehow don't see why it is bad that one faction is more dominant as the other. It will balance itself to some regard. More pilots, more targets. The weaker militia won't die of. After all its about pvp, only a subset of the members do pve exclusively and if they do... they are just another kind for target. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
320
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 03:33:00 -
[267] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i somehow don't see why it is bad that one faction is more dominant as the other. It will balance itself to some regard. More pilots, more targets. The weaker militia won't die of. After all its about pvp, only a subset of the members do pve exclusively and if they do... they are just another kind for target.
As long as the mechanics allow the smaller side to still try to achieve substantial goals it will be ok. But if the mechanics are like null sec sov mechanics where you really can't do anything unless you have the bigger numbers then it will be a problem. The problem is the war will effectively end.
There are several ideas about how they can start to balance things out if it gets lopsided. These include allowing the side that is losing systems to put larger ships in the plexes to defend their remaining systems. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
63
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 04:01:00 -
[268] - Quote
Swapping a soiled diaper for a soiled, but dried diaper does not constitute change and is thus not to be feared .. hated vehemently but not not feared
The datacore scheme (as balancing force) will ONLY work if the acquisition of LP is tied directly to completion of militia related activities, ie. plexing (occupancy) and chastising the enemy (PvP). But here is the kicker, CCP does not want to dictate how people should play the game .. their words .. so a dependency such as that won't happen. Result: The occupancy war becomes even more lopsided as some militias (those whose T2 items are out-of-style) are left barren, filled with mission whoring characters and whatever hold-outs remain of the old guard. It is pretty much already there, with a vast majority of militias being alts-of-alts sitting in mission bombers all day .. granted they tend to drop decent loot if one can catch them
It is all fine and dandy that they want to plan for FW to expand/succeed, but doing so by adding mechanics that have already been tried and failed (what you call 'extensive playtesting' I suppose ) is idiotic. No one, I know, enjoy grinding EHP and no one I know enjoy having their game experience ruined through no fault of their own (the no docking in lost space). CCP has already shown that they have at least one brain capable of solving the problem by releasing Incursions: activity results are directly tied to numbers used/involved .. dictating that gangs should be as large as possible to save a bit of sanity (EHP grinds) is to put it bluntly - stupid.
It is bad enough that you can blob (FW blob = one gang w. more than other can field, more common than you might think) a constellation and flip the whole thing in one sitting (5-6 hrs) .. and now we are to get StuffzGäó for doing that while the enemy gets pushed to high-sec just to be able to dock?
In short: CCP needs to consult the FW rats/monkeys/tools and figure out what FW actually is before adding stuff that at best changes little and at worst breaks everything.
Doom'n'Gloom, over and out. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 12:21:00 -
[269] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[quote=David Caldera][quote=Uppsy Daisy]Should Faction Warfare be "breakable" ?? Should one side be able to overwhelm the other? Do you want market reasons for pilots to get involved with FW?? Nothing in EVE should be breakable by design. How crazy-talk is that?!
One side shouldn't overwhelm the other but the fact is they can and that's the sandbox. The consequent events would be, providing Faction Warfare becomes ever-more popluar, would have Militia corporations and decide to fight back What has to happen all games is Control & Balance to be Fair, and for a meta-game perspective of EVE why f*** it up with no Balance and no Control? -- DUST's respawning, limited reward-based and rank-based free ship reimbursements to counter the huge risk of constant dying. Militia could be the cleansing of lowsec, too! Free incentives must not destabilize economy, though!
I do very much want stations to influence Faction Warfare. Having a station apply a 'military tax' on orders and transactions To and From that station where the solarsystem or constellation is on 'military alert' would greatly influence many players. The market is choked, and so players are to make a decision: profit for self or invest in station's faction for self. (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.10 12:33:00 -
[270] - Quote
Rimase wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[quote=David Caldera][quote=Uppsy Daisy]Should Faction Warfare be "breakable" ?? Should one side be able to overwhelm the other? Do you want market reasons for pilots to get involved with FW?? Nothing in EVE should be breakable by design. How crazy-talk is that?! (SUGGESTION) What can happen is when an empire is near utter failure, concord may intervene making things much more difficult and criminalizing. If such thing was the happen, and whole empire's militia would become criminal and whole universe can decide to hunt them down. You'd see the destructors recalling back to low-sec systems, and the repercussions of that is that empires economy totally changing against them, and other players migrate to winning systems. An empire essential becomes criminal and their only option is to redeem themselves somehow (FW meta-game side-mission? pirate-hunt for +status? become cannibals?). Such a thing would be entirely rare, probably would never happen but, still, becomes a possibility in EVE. 'Imagine if that happened?'One side shouldn't overwhelm the other but the fact is they can and that's the sandbox. The consequent events would be--providing Faction Warfare becomes ever-more popular--would have Militia corporations and whole empires deciding to fight back What has to happen all games is Control & Balance to be Fair, and for a meta-game perspective of EVE why f*** it up with no Balance and no Control? -- DUST's respawning, limited reward-based and rank-based free ship reimbursements to counter the huge risk of constant dying. Militia could be the cleansing of lowsec, too! Free incentives must not destabilize economy, though!I do very much want stations to influence Faction Warfare. Having a station apply a 'military tax' on orders and transactions To and From that station where the solarsystem or constellation is on 'military alert' would greatly influence many players. The market is choked, and so players are to make a decision: profit for self or invest in station's faction for self. dafuk is this post? i didnt make this happen. (Why CCP no improve Shareholding?): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=71032#post71032 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |