EVE Search - Sticky:Fanfest 2012 Breaking News: Factional Warfare

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Events and Gatherings Archive

Sticky:Fanfest 2012 Breaking News: Factional Warfare

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Andre Vauban Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords 6	Posted - 2012.03.24 04:12:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Navigator wrote: GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space Please, please, please don't do this. This will result in one side winning and the other side not being able to fight back because they cannot base out of systems close enough to take systems back. Once one side has conquered all/most of the lowsec station systems, it will be game over because the losing side will have no place to base out of in order to take systems back. You need to REALLY think about this.
Hans Jagerblitzen Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 2129	Posted - 2012.03.24 05:59:00 - [32] - Quote Steve Celeste wrote: Hey FW guys we heard you hate sov warfare, so we put some of it into your FW so you can ragequit while you selfdestruct. Painfully, painfully, true. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details. Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words!
Julius Foederatus Hyper-Nova 66	Posted - 2012.03.24 06:10:00 - [33] - Quote The docking rights thing has needed to happen for ages. Honestly, I don't think it goes far enough. I'd like to see it so any neutral with really bad faction standings towards the sov holding faction can't dock in a warzone station. Not only would it cut down on incredibly stupid pirate carrier/station games, it would be a lot less ridiculous than having people who shoot you on a regular basis as your neighbors. And as far as the sov stuff goes, I'm all for it as long as you don't go overboard and make it so not having it is painful. Gameplay should be about consequences. If you don't defend your systems, you lose your access. Anything else is just asking ccp to hold your hands and give you a cookie. In other words, it ain't EVE.
Hans Jagerblitzen Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance 2129	Posted - 2012.03.24 06:19:00 - [34] - Quote Julius Foederatus wrote: Gameplay should be about consequences. If you don't defend your systems, you lose your access. The critical thing is protecting game play diversity. True sovereignty holding, with total station lockout, investment in infrastructure, etc. are precisely the sort of game play that already exists in 0.0, and does not need to be duplicated in low sec. Saying "thats just EVE" doesnt take into consideration the fact that militia pilots have been engaged in FW for years to not have to hassle with these things. Militia pilots want fights. We want a plexing systems and reward system that YES, absolutely gives cookies and points two groups of feral cats at each others throats. Beyond that is where everyone in Faction Warfare starts diverging in what they want for the feature. I think there are ways we can add reward and consequence to the system without duplicating 0.0 game play and reducing the number of things there are to do in EVE. This is what CCP and the CSM have been saying - they want create a system that works well for Faction Warfare first and foremost. Now is the time to hold them to their word. This "streamlining" of 0.0 and FW gameplay is precisely what everyone has been screaming to prevent since the Winter Summit. Missed an interview or debate? Check my CSM7 blog for details. Many thanks to all of my friends and supporters for the kind words!
Baroness Samcar Weak and Needy 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 06:58:00 - [35] - Quote If R&D agents are removed, and datacores moved to faction warfare, I would damn well expect to have the skills i trained for this to be refunded. - On average, nearly 3 months of skills were trained just for datacores. - Its pretty bloody annoying to have those skills trained and no longer reap the benefits. - No, i dont want to use those skills for copying blueprints, I trained them purely for datacores.
Julius Foederatus Hyper-Nova 66	Posted - 2012.03.24 08:10:00 - [36] - Quote I don't see it as that big a deal honestly. It's not like you're pushed out of your area completely, you can always fall back to high sec or elsewhere and continue to fight. You can never be fully pushed out of the warzone. Not to mention it also serves the function of establishing an organic frontline, since you won't be able to maintain operations too far from your own space due to logistics and enemy reinforcements.
wingman01 The Dead Rabbit Society 1	Posted - 2012.03.24 10:18:00 - [37] - Quote Looks like a great improvement for FW, really pleased to see the attention going into FW. Cant wait!!
Eric Deloitte The Flowing Penguins Iron Oxide. 1	Posted - 2012.03.24 10:54:00 - [38] - Quote With regards to the comments about Datacores what is getting lost in the "Nerf Passive Income Vs I want my SP back" debate is that datacores form part of the cost of nearly every T2 item and ship. If Datacores go from being Passive to Active then I would expect their price to go up, if they go up then so will T2 equipment and ships. As an example a T2 cruiser hull uses about 10 million isk in Datacores for invention, if this goes up expect to see further inflation on T2 Personally as a Producer and Consumer of Datacores, the income on Datacores is such a trickle, that its realistically a nice little bonus every now and again and if I lost it I wouldn't really feel it, but I'd be concerned about putting another bottleneck into T2 Production that would make prices rise.
Susan Black KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance 13	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:17:00 - [39] - Quote Completely removing access to all stations in a system is problematic due to the nature of Faction War mechanics. What people do not understand is that flipping a system from one faction to another is a process that can take as little as 8 hours. Therefore, you can go to bed, and if people in another time zone do not plex or defend, you can lose access to your stuff in that station. There are several problems with this 1. This essentially nerfs pvp. If you can't get to your ships, or don't have the ability to base close to the warzone due to station mechanics, you are essentially making it more difficult for people to pvp in FW. (Not making the pvp more difficult, which would be fine...but actually making it harder to pvp at all. 2. The inability to dock in all stations doesnt make sense from a storyline perspective. Why would a station that is irrelevant to FW (ie: The Scope) prevent me from docking 3. The fact that neutrals can all dock means that you are essentially getting punished for being in FW. You are in FW so suddenly you may not be able to dock. You shuld be encouraging people to join FW, and this definately does not do it 4. FW, for good or bad, encourages new pvpers to join its ranks. In my opinion, if I was new, the inability to access my stuff, and the focus that would be needed for me to figure out the station/FW mechanics and try to location to somewhere 'safe' etc would be a show stopper. I would say, "well, this is really dumb and unproductive, I think I will go play something else now. This will have multiple results People will leave Faction War and fight as neutral instead due to frustration with the system People will spend a lot of time and effort focusing on how to get around the system (ie: using neutral alts to get to their stuff) in stead of focusing on playing EVE and having fun What they could do instead: -Don't prevent docking, just prevent use of some of the station's facilities. Or -Have the station guns that currently shoot GCCs shoot whomever the opposing militia is. We can still sneak in, but we certainly can't camp the station easily, or use it as effectively. Or -Have the current stations permanently belong ONLY to the people in that militia. (No neutrals, no opposing militia.) Have station guns 'turn off' if opposing militia takes over, and remove access to agents, or something to that effect. Make it very desireable to keep the station in ownership, but do not make the consequences a show stopper for many EVE players.
Susan Black KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance 13	Posted - 2012.03.24 14:45:00 - [40] - Quote The LP system in eve is broken. I'm not talking about how we get LP or what we can buy. Right now, EVE has a pretty complicated, player driven market. The reason it's so good is because it's so multi-faceted, so player driven, so open for people to use it in different ways. The LP market is a static market that is not based on supply and demand. Basically, you farm missions, you buy whatever you want that is provided by a NPC. What if, instead, they made it more supply and demand and more player controlled? What if...players could sell things to the market 'pool' for LP, then use their lp to buy other stuff? What if you could use LP to buy practical items like non faction ships in that militia's race, (ie: the Minmatar could buy hurricanes, etc.) 1. This would encourage militias to use ships that belong to their militia. It would expand the RPness of FW a little in a totally non creepy way. 2. You develop a cycle between missioning and plexing to support pvpers, and visa versa. 3. You give people the ability to essentially 'fund' their war efforts. 4. Players could supply warzones, gain LP, and use the LP to buy faction items that they could then sell or use. Putting stuff that's irrelevant to Faction War in the LP store only encourages people to 'farm' LP in missions without having to have any interest in actually participating in FW. It also forces mechanics on people, which goes against the sandbox. You should not be forced to do FW missions in order to achieve access to an item that is largely irrelevant to FW. It's way too contrived a system. www.gamerchick.net Follow me on Twitter! @gamerchick42

This Suxbad State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 19:42:00 - [41] - Quote While I understand the potential fun of the faction warfare idea, there is one thing that has always bugged me. Why are faction warfare pilots allowed to be pirates or kill civilians? I think that it is a bit of a contradiction to be part of the "Government" and still be allowed to kill non warefare players. I would like to see a higher standing decrease for faction warfare members that agress non faction warfare players. I would also think that anyone under a standing of 0 should be removed from faction warfare. Sorry Blobbers but you shouldn't use the milita force against your civilians. If you get the perks then you should have some down sides also.
ELECTR0FREAK 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 20:33:00 - [42] - Quote Elmanketticks wrote: CCP Navigator wrote: This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it. ... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ... Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents. Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation. It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup. I support it.
ELECTR0FREAK 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 20:34:00 - [43] - Quote double post
zero2espect ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 29	Posted - 2012.03.24 20:38:00 - [44] - Quote ok sorry guys. i posted a whole heap of stuff into our corp forums and basically forgot that others might like to know what is going on I'm at fanfest. i'm the guy with the yellow glasses speaking with the australian accent as you can imaging i attended both the FW presentation and the Roundtable. I also managed to grab one of the devs this morning for 30secs i've kind of gone bananas on this. the background. all of this has happened because some people somewhere once said that their should be consequences to losing systems. cpp has taken this statement and turned it into the massive "what is wrong with faction warfare" item. i will try to state here clearly the difference between what i think/believe and what i said/know based on what i have seen and done last 2 days. basically we're screwed and that this is pretty much developed. we were shown concept art on the LP point spending interfaces etc. it looks pretty far down the track of development. if you don't like it you need to say it here. they are watching the forums. they will do what they think people want. you have to tell them now. get everyone in FW to post here. EVERYONE i think it's a really really bad idea and is going to turn eve fw into a job. you will log in each day and hope that the system that you're in hasn't been flipped while you were asleep and you have locked yourself out of your ships, corp hangers, medical facilities etc. you lose access to everything in the station (corp hangers anybody???). this in turn means that everyone starts keeping their ships in tuo or other nearby hi-sec systems and that has the massive impact of slowing down reships and making it harder to get and escalate fights. it means that people don't join fleets for pvp that also may involve system flipping, they join fleets because they HAVE to keep running plexes. this sucks the idea is that each corp/player out of the goodness of their hearts, piles massive amounts of LP into "upgrading" systems they have capped to make them harder to re-cap and to eventually activate a cyno jammer. let me make it clear - corps and players have to spend THEIR LP into levelling up the systems......so instead of people using LP to get slicers with which they do some PVP and keep things rolling, they have to instead give it all up for the benefit of the faction. in reality, 1 or 2 corps and one or 2 players will care enough to do it a lot and it will not have much of an impact on anything apart from where we base our ships. this has monumental issues with other citizens of losec btw and massive repercussions for what might happen to fw. i'm sure that amarr doesn't want PL to join mims (for example) just so that they control the cyno jammer in make. they said that all of this is still pretty fluid and need to look at a few things.
zero2espect ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 29	Posted - 2012.03.24 20:39:00 - [45] - Quote bunkers will change to ihubs (same as 0.0) which means they have bigger sig and can be hit better with caps and missile boats they were also going to make LP for kills either incursion style in the fleet or on the killmail (i hope in the fleet). they were looking at the mechanics of this. it is my hope that they have a certain level of LP for each ship class and enemy pilot rank and then whatever this value is worth, it is split up to the members of the fleet (this encourages more, smaller gangs to fly and roam and less 32 BS killing 1 rifter fleets) i told them in no uncertain terms that we are fw becuase we want to be and probably most of us have been to 0.0 and hate it so came into FW my idea with the cyno jamming (i think it could be a really good combat tool btw) is this. anybody can trade a fairly massive amount of FACTION LP in to receive a data-chip or activation key. this can be traded, sold, killed in a cargo bay, anything. next to every faction warfare i-hub is a cyno jammer. sitting there in space. happy as you like. If your faction holds the system sov, anybody in your faction can warp to the cyno jammer, insert the LP bought microchip and fire the cyno jammer. in 60mins or DT the cyno jammer turns off. this increases the value of system ownership, gives us something juicy to see on killmails, is really simple, means we dont really really upset other losec citizens and gives us another tool to bring back the days of 60 vs 60 bs fites in kourm/auga. most importantly it is easy to implement and communicate rather than escalating levels of sov in losec???? wtf next i said the station stuff is just crazy. just plain crazy although personally i can live with it (it's just like 0.0 mechanics where you lose a station you just trade all your stuff to a neutral alt or an alt you have in the enemy corp/alliance and get it all out). but it will SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the tempo of getting the bigger fights escalating. if you like station games this will screw you as well. all of a sudden everyone will have 5 guys in corp and 50 guys as neuts ready. it will seriously make it harder to get people to come into FW as the risk (or pain the bum anyway) goes up significantly i pointed out that if they implement the changes it will cascade fail the smaller militias as people wont want to join the losing side as there will be too much money to make on data cores on the winning side. just like the alliance changes have really boosted the mims and basically cut the heart out of amarr in recent weeks they said once the mechanics are sorted, in play and testing it will be possible to bring the pirate factions into the mix - things are being looked at so this works on the avatar side they are looking at things like faction warfare medals, uniforms and accessories that can be purchased on the faction LP store and applied to your toon. they will look at ways to get the uniforms to update with ranks and stuff that you have earned in FW. no promises though. i pointed out to them the broken issue of faction standing loss and then gaining it back being really hard because you've already gone through the promotions. this was new to them. they were looking into rank having a boosting effect somehow on LP earns. this is good in principle. they did think about control of the system has incursion style impacts on the systems e.g. better boosts etc, but at the moment they have a "realism" issue with these in incursions and didn't want to repeat the same mistake again, into FW. i agree with this. i told them that everybody in the room knows that if ccp simply halved the payout of LP on faction missions, and gave us LP for every ship kill or plex we cap, that will fix 95% of the problems we have (not getting fights, making plexing valuable). if they did this right now, and then spent months working out whatever they want to do next, this would be the best approach to take. most people in the room like this and i got a pretty good round of applause for it. theres probably a whole heap more that i will remember and add over the coming days etc.
zero2espect ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 29	Posted - 2012.03.24 20:41:00 - [46] - Quote ELECTR0FREAK wrote: Elmanketticks wrote: CCP Navigator wrote: This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it. ... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ... Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents. Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation. It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup. I support it. they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea.
BOCCO BREARLEY ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 0	Posted - 2012.03.24 21:38:00 - [47] - Quote +1 good post Zero agree with everything you said. Awesome that CCP have spent time on little old us in FW. Station stuff made me laugh as someone mentioned it on coms in passing and half my ships have already moved to Tuo :P - "Advanced Chicken Upgrade" lvl 5 completed for me over 1 year ago I'd only like to add one thing and thats can we have a set of top hats only available in FW for our characters?
Fleet Warpsujarento State Protectorate Caldari State 29	Posted - 2012.03.24 21:39:00 - [48] - Quote Preventing docking is a stupid idea. It creates an incentive to leave militia and fight as a pirate. This is going to make people leave militia instead of join it. This is the opposite of what CCP want to achieve.
Kneebone K-H Light Industries 8	Posted - 2012.03.24 22:16:00 - [49] - Quote Adding datacores to FW LP is simply a dumb idea. Datacores have been around long before FW and have no logical reason to be part of FW LP. If you want to make a change, add them to the R&D corp's LP stores. This eliminates the passive RP generation you want to decrease, while not affected industry/non combat players who are the ones that use datacores. Also those of us that trained the associated science skills should get a refund. The only reason many people trained those skills were for RP, not invention. If people use them for invention they can go right back to doing it while those of us that do RP only can use them elsewhere. The skill for interacting with R&D agents should be completely refunded if those goes through as well.
Bud Good ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 0	Posted - 2012.03.25 00:47:00 - [50] - Quote I agree with most of the previous posters who do not like the idea of limiting station access in FW space to the faction that controls the system. I was in 0.0 space, and prefer FW because it is simpler. I just want to have some fun fights, and don't really want to bother with the complexity of 0.0. For this reason, I personally do not want FW to become a low-sec version of 0.0. I think a decent compromise with regard to station access in faction warfare systems would be to make it so that the militia corp stations are always accessible to that particular militia regardless of who controls the system (for example, members of Amarr Militia should always be allowed to access any 24th Imperial Crusade station) . However, all of the other stations in a system could be accessible only to the faction that controls the system. This would benefit a faction that captures an enemy system, as they would then have a place to dock in enemy territory. At the same time, it would not overly punish the losing faction as long as they were smart enough to store their stuff in a militia station. Just my initial thoughts. I haven't really thought about them in great detail yet.

Julius Foederatus Hyper-Nova 66	Posted - 2012.03.25 01:08:00 - [51] - Quote Docking rights need to be tied to standings as well as militia membership, so FWarriors can't just drop out of militia with a carrier alt and a mach and grief stations so that we have the same lame bullshit that we have now. And as far as casual pvp goes, if you don't want to risk losing your systems, you can move back to high sec, or just move in with a larger militia corp that is actually willing to defend their home. More consequences means higher stakes, higher stakes mean more people involved in FW occupancy, and more people involved means more and better fights. It's a win-win imo. Even now, systems are not flipped that quickly unless one side just gives up or is totally outclassed. With more people playing it will bog down the times as well, so you'll have plenty of opportunity to defend your area. Not to mention, if you don't want to participate in the territory part of FW, you're going to have a much harder time earning isk that you need to pvp with. So you can simply defend your home area by plexing and still make enough to be able to keep affording ships that you fight with in pvp.
Fleet Warpsujarento State Protectorate Caldari State 32	Posted - 2012.03.25 01:18:00 - [52] - Quote Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio?
zero2espect ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES 36	Posted - 2012.03.25 01:33:00 - [53] - Quote Fleet Warpsujarento wrote: Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio? Sounds like nullsec to me, and we all know how nullsec is for dynamic and fast paced gang action. with the major blob of the enemy fleet camping the in/out gates to highsec.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 1075	Posted - 2012.03.25 03:13:00 - [54] - Quote Shalee Lianne wrote: I don't know what a datacore is either lol Neither do the devs, apparently ;) To understand what data cores are used for, you'll need to read up about Invention (which is where T2 stuff comes from).
Julius Foederatus Hyper-Nova 68	Posted - 2012.03.25 04:21:00 - [55] - Quote Fleet Warpsujarento wrote: Julius, you're an FC. How would you like it if you had to go back to a friendly system, maybe 10 jumps away from the combat every time you wanted to take a five minute bio? Sounds like nullsec to me, and we all know how nullsec is for dynamic and fast paced gang action. It's how we did it back in the old days, it honestly would not bother me. And if I get camped in, then it's my own fault.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate 425	Posted - 2012.03.25 04:24:00 - [56] - Quote CCP Navigator wrote: . GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. I would suggest this is the wrong choice. Full disclosure, I do not have any R&D points or do any R&D. Make R&D active instead of passive. Make it cost players some time and some goods of various sorts, somewhat like it was in the lottery days. Eve needs more separation of activities and resources, needs more divisions of labor and specialization, not consolidation into convoluted configurations of unrelated activities and rewards.
Wraithik PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 4	Posted - 2012.03.25 04:35:00 - [57] - Quote The draw to FW for me was to support my faction (lore) and get some good fights (PVP) while living in Low Sec (risk). Change feedback: LP for Plexing and PVP is great! Plexes are currently pointless. Ask yourselfGÇªcan I replace my losses by Plexing / PVPing? This needs to be considered when making these decisions. LP for system upgrades: Systems should be upgradeable, but the upgrades should only benefit the paying faction. Make each upgrade level spawn faction NPCGÇÖs on the gates, stations, and iHub. The higher level of sov, the more / higher quality the NPCGÇÖs. This would prevent enemy militia gate camps in sovereign (upgraded) space, and provided a defensive advantage. In warfare, the defenders always have the advantage of fortification. This change would provide that advantage. If neutrals attack the navy, then the navy attacks back. If neutrals attack a friendly militia member, then the navy joins the fight. Let us feel like part of the faction we are fighting for, and give us a reason to invest LP into our systems. This would also go hand-in-hand with your (CCP) stated goal of giving NPCGÇÖs more PVP like abilities. Station lockout is terrible. Follow the above idea and put navy spawns at each station to prevent enemies from playing station games in non-sovereign space. Neutrals suffer no ill effects; as well they shouldnGÇÖt since they are not in the war. Datacores to FW LP doesnGÇÖt make sense. Please donGÇÖt do this. Spend your developer time on fixing the T2 BPO issues that people rage about constantly. Datacores and invention are not brokenGÇªplease donGÇÖt spend time working on things that players do NOT want changed. EVE Dust link: Here comes the good idea fairyGÇªall those vehicles, guns, barges, etcGÇªseed those to ONLY the FW LP store. We (FW pilots) need a way to make ISK. If you nerf the LP from FW missions and increase the PVP / offensive plex value you will have a winning, non-farmable combination. Defensive plexing should give drastically less LP since a zero SP pilot can just sit in the site and cloak up/warp off when hostiles come in. Offensive plex payout should decrease as a faction acquires more systemsGÇªprevents steamrolling by major alliances. Amarr Victor!
Hellanna Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2012.03.25 05:33:00 - [58] - Quote So for those of us that don't PvP/Combat and just like the Industrial side of the game, are we now getting screwed out of the standings gain we had to go through? Are we going to now have to rely on PvPers for the majority of the datacores on the market?
Hellanna Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2012.03.25 05:41:00 - [59] - Quote zero2espect wrote: ELECTR0FREAK wrote: Elmanketticks wrote: CCP Navigator wrote: This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it. ... GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores. ... Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole? If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills! First, it says decrease passive datacore gains, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're going to remove R&D agents. Secondly, obviously you don't understand how market supply and demand works... reducing passive datacore generation by agents will make datacores more valuable and thus it will balance itself out. This coming from someone maxed out when it comes to datacore generation. It'll also give traders more opportunity as they'll be able to transport datacores out of FW areas to production areas for a markup. I support it. they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea. Datacores are used by industrialist. Not many PvPers are going to buy datacores with their LP from FW. Prices will skyrocket and so will the price of t2 mods. Make them available more through active missioning from R&D agents if they want to nerf the passive...don't make us PvP for them, they prices are just going to skyrocket if the do that.
Adunh Slavy Ammatar Trade Syndicate 425	Posted - 2012.03.25 05:57:00 - [60] - Quote zero2espect wrote: they do want to remove the R&D agents. this is just a passive isk faucet that everybody maxes out and provides no meaningful game element. they want to replace it with an active gameplay which is earn the LP and then buy them off the market. this is a great idea. Datacores are not an ISK faucet, they are a material faucet. Yes it should not be a passive activity, 100% agree. No they should not be in FW. Activities should not generate too many kinds of rewards. This removes incentive from other players in other parts of the game to specialize and accomplish goals.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.