EVE Search - CCP! Can we get some feedback on FW please???

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP! Can we get some feedback on FW please???

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:18:00 - [31] Originally by: Another Forum'Alt Hmm, new stuff being planned for FW, posted by zulupark? Probably a nerf then You'll be happy to hear I do very little game balancing these days

Sheriff Jones Amarr Clinical Experiment	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:20:00 - [32] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Typical disappointing CCP answer.. and you wonder why it is that there's lack of "golden days communication". Christ and his imaginayr friends, it's like living with children it is. Well, except you can reason with kids

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:21:00 - [33] Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki stuff... I'll talk to the designers and see if they have anything that's ready for sharing.

Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:26:00 - [34] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Like someone else said here, the incentive to PVP should be the PVP itself :) While that is of course true, I think the idea behind FW was also to lure some carebears into pvp. That works only if there is some sort of profit involved I think. Otherwise they will just lose ships (because being carebears), getting frustrated or bored and leave after a while.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:26:00 - [35] If people don't want zero commitment PvP on demand, what more can you offer? As for the RP side, I think few hired hands screwing around in a handful of the least important systems in an interstaller war fought between billions which has ground to a halt affecting nothing makes a lot of sense.
Flash Bombardo	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:39:00 - [36] I was a carebear. Now I'm a FW scout/pennyless cannon fodder. Must be something right about FW then. Its just very very expensive, I've lost about 30 million in three FW sessions and I havent fired a shot yet !
Miyamoto Uroki Caldari KuhSchubsKlan	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:42:00 - [37] Originally by: Sheriff Jones Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Typical disappointing CCP answer.. and you wonder why it is that there's lack of "golden days communication". Christ and his imaginayr friends, it's like living with children it is. Well, except you can reason with kids Didn't get it, sorry. As you might have noticed english isn't my first language. I somehow do have the strange feeling that you just flamed me, though ^^ Just let me assure you that I neither am a kid nor the typical forum troll. I've been around with ccp for more than 5 years now, without a break, and if I show a bit of sarcasm in my posts that's because I still believe in Eve to become "the game" out there. @Zulupark: It would be awesome if you could give a feedback in here whether someone of that game design crew agreed to get in here or not. The standard answer of "I see if I can get <insert random ccp cell here> to post in here" is just not very satisfying. Not saying that I don't trust you to hold this little "promise" but well...
Audemed Perdition Inc	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Diarrhea Aguilera However what I would like to see implemented in the near future to improve it: - opposing militias should not be able to dock in stations of opposing militias - ever - I mean come on - how ******ed is that? - consequences to system souvereignity, be it docking rights or the ability to push the front into enemy highsec, so anyone actually would start giving a damn... - LP store rewards for capping plexes. - unique items available only in the militia LP stores. - remove faction navies altogether, so we can actually shoot eachother in highsec. - FW missions have to be more rewarding than corresponding high sec missions - and I mean a lot. I fully support this...not too keen on the whole not docking thing, but whatever. FW missions should NOT go 17 jumps away, they should to to the nearest enemy held system. Capping plexes should give LP. Holding systems should give a nominal ammount of LP/day (think research agents). Give people a reason to cap and hold systems, and the pvp will become even more intense.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:45:00 - [39] Edited by: Gnulpie on 01/09/2008 12:45:43 Originally by: Crumplecorn If people don't want zero commitment PvP on demand, what more can you offer? I think people would like to see some effect of their doings. If they capture a system and hold it for a while it would be nice to see some changes, changes more than just a changed name in the occupancy status. Originally by: Crumplecorn As for the RP side, I think few hired hands screwing around in a handful of the least important systems in an interstaller war fought between billions which has ground to a halt affecting nothing makes a lot of sense. Politics and emotiones usually do not makes lots of sense. Look at current politics for example (small country georgia, few people involved compared to world population, but they are already talking about cold war), few things, small changes CAN have influence in a non-linear way. Actually that is the usual behaviour. The interaction between FW and local economics should be improved. Also would be good if you could scan out stuff (enemy ships for example) faster in systems which you occupy for a while. Is it also planned to upgrade the occupancy status to a finer grain? Just 0/1 is maybe not good enough. Difference between "core" systems and "remote" systems might be open up new possibilities. Docking rights! It makes not much sense that you can dock at hostile milita stations in hostile systems. Ah well, and while being there. It would be such a good thing the corp who captured the bunker would gain some control over the system and become a 'landlord' in such a way that they can set docking fees, gate fees and such for friendly, hostile and neutral people. The money could then go into their own pockets and if people become unhappy with those fees they have another reason to attack and capture the system.
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:46:00 - [40] Originally by: Flash Bombardo I was a carebear. Now I'm a FW scout/pennyless cannon fodder. Must be something right about FW then. Its just very very expensive, I've lost about 30 million in three FW sessions and I havent fired a shot yet ! I'd be interested to know how you achieved this. Losing lots of money (which one cannot afford to lose) seems quite common in FW and ... shouldn't be. One time I brought four separate ships to the same long-running battle, all of which I lost, for a total cost of approx 16M. All were cruiser or larger.
Miyamoto Uroki Caldari KuhSchubsKlan	Posted - 2008.09.01 12:51:00 - [41] Originally by: Gnulpie Ah well, and while being there. It would be such a good thing the corp who captured the bunker would gain some control over the system and become a 'landlord' in such a way that they can set docking fees, gate fees and such for friendly, hostile and neutral people. The money could then go into their own pockets and if people become unhappy with those fees they have another reason to attack and capture the system. That would be Viceroys. Think it's still listed in the "Planned features" list, although they are heavily outdated and not being updated by ccp. But that idea is already on the might-do list.
Fiddlelina	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:07:00 - [42] IMHO,a first thing to do, which shouldn't be to hard, do not use any coding or balancing whatsoever is posting FW related news. Since the beginning of the war there was one news topic (about the scientist saved by the 24th). Isn't those wars the single biggest thing that happened to the eve universe since the beginning of eve? Wasn't there supposed to be embedded journalists or something? Because having your name in the news (or knowing you play a part of it) is also an incentive. Maybe first for RPers, but to everybody else to, it do seems like you actually achieved something somewhere. Because PVP for PVP is fine, but feeling part of something is better: in FW you lend your fighting force to people (the empires) who do not seem to care. Why shouldn't you fight for yourselve then? (Ok I guess the idea is precisely to people to feel that way as incentive to go to 0.0, and RP be damned: eve about sandbox and not story. But thats another rant :)) (oh, and i remember a topic for in CSM forum along that way but I cant find it back)
DeckardIRL Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:30:00 - [43] Edited by: DeckardIRL on 01/09/2008 13:34:43 Firstly, I am in the Militia for the pvp, its reasonable pvp despite the lag. No 0.0 hassles. I also agree with all the people posting that taking and capturing systems is pointless and a waste of time... when the first one was lost I asked the consequences and was told there were none... missions are a joke... I agree that being able to dock in oppposing factions stations does not make sense... but capturing a system to then enable docking rights would almost be worthwhile... Can't be that hard to include such things to make the non pvp more interesting... The charge of 2Bn isk is also a joke for a Corp mail in the Militia- how does CCP expect people to be able to organise effectively, unless you use outside forums only.. there is no defintive command structure within the militia therefore responsiblilities cannot be allocated... something needs done here.. a particular Dev to command each Militia with specific goals etc... Deck
Sheriff Jones Amarr Clinical Experiment	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:46:00 - [44] Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 01/09/2008 13:46:09 Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Originally by: Sheriff Jones Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki Typical disappointing CCP answer.. and you wonder why it is that there's lack of "golden days communication". Christ and his imaginayr friends, it's like living with children it is. Well, except you can reason with kids Didn't get it, sorry. As you might have noticed english isn't my first language. I somehow do have the strange feeling that you just flamed me, though ^^ Not at all, simply pointing out that if every answer i gave was met with anger and/or flmes, i wouldn't give even breadcrumbs to norty children

CCP Flatboy	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:54:00 - [45] Usual Disclaimer: Please do not treat anything in this reply as an announcement or declaration of things to come. It describes what we want to do and where our current focus is. "Us" being the Factional Warfare team. I'll be happy to share with you guys some of the things we have in store for Factional Warfare in the near-future. We are all quite fond of FW ourselves here at CCP and so it's likely to get all the love and attention it deserves and to keep being developed for years to come. There is limitless room for expansion and we have a lot of ideas about where to go. The first and second priorities right now are of course putting in some real rewards and breaking up the blobs. We realize that physical rewards for FW are now nearly non-existent. We decided to pre-nerf rewards heavily so we would see how you guys were reacting to FW and be able to more accurately target the rewards where needed. Occupying a system should mean something. There should be some real effects. However, we feel that refusing people docking permissions completely is overly harsh, mainly towards those that currently have loads of stuff in a station in which they couldn't dock after that change. Instead we have been toying with the idea of not allowing FW pilots to use station services in stations located in enemy occupied systems. This would mean they could dock but not really do anything in the station. They would be denied access to repair services, fitting services and even agents. Bonuses to use of services in stations occupied by your own militia, personal rewards for taking down System Control Bunkers, rank rewards and unique items in the LP store are some of the other rewards we are wanting to add, all pending further consideration of course. We see the emphasis on blob warfare in FW as a negative thing and want to reduce it greatly. We see two good ways to do this and will explore them both: Increased Information and Rank Rewards. One of the reason conflicts in complexes aren't more common is that it's exceedingly difficult to find complexes with enemy pilots inside them. We want to make this easier by providing more intelligence to players about enemy movement and complex activity. In short: We want to make it easier for those who want PvP to destroy those that want to run complexes without a fight. ;) Another reason is of course that while ranks give bragging rights, they don't give any material rewards. Changing this will encourage people to earn Victory Points and the only way to do that is currently to win complexes. As you may have noticed our strategy is to lure people into the complexes and thus get them away from the blobs. We have a huge list of things we want to do for Factional Warfare and I expect we will be working on it for years to come. Please keep vocal about what you would like to see in FW in the future as we build all our decisions on feedback from you guys.

Lesivio Minmatar Conditioned Response	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:58:00 - [46] Originally by: CCP Flatboy Usual Disclaimer: Please do not treat anything in this reply as an announcement or declaration of things to come. It describes what we want to do and where our current focus is. "Us" being the Factional Warfare team. I'll be happy to share with you guys some of the things we have in store for Factional Warfare in the near-future. We are all quite fond of FW ourselves here at CCP and so it's likely to get all the love and attention it deserves and to keep being developed for years to come. There is limitless room for expansion and we have a lot of ideas about where to go. The first and second priorities right now are of course putting in some real rewards and breaking up the blobs. We realize that physical rewards for FW are now nearly non-existent. We decided to pre-nerf rewards heavily so we would see how you guys were reacting to FW and be able to more accurately target the rewards where needed. Occupying a system should mean something. There should be some real effects. However, we feel that refusing people docking permissions completely is overly harsh, mainly towards those that currently have loads of stuff in a station in which they couldn't dock after that change. Instead we have been toying with the idea of not allowing FW pilots to use station services in stations located in enemy occupied systems. This would mean they could dock but not really do anything in the station. They would be denied access to repair services, fitting services and even agents. Bonuses to use of services in stations occupied by your own militia, personal rewards for taking down System Control Bunkers, rank rewards and unique items in the LP store are some of the other rewards we are wanting to add, all pending further consideration of course. We see the emphasis on blob warfare in FW as a negative thing and want to reduce it greatly. We see two good ways to do this and will explore them both: Increased Information and Rank Rewards. One of the reason conflicts in complexes aren't more common is that it's exceedingly difficult to find complexes with enemy pilots inside them. We want to make this easier by providing more intelligence to players about enemy movement and complex activity. In short: We want to make it easier for those who want PvP to destroy those that want to run complexes without a fight. ;) Another reason is of course that while ranks give bragging rights, they don't give any material rewards. Changing this will encourage people to earn Victory Points and the only way to do that is currently to win complexes. As you may have noticed our strategy is to lure people into the complexes and thus get them away from the blobs. We have a huge list of things we want to do for Factional Warfare and I expect we will be working on it for years to come. Please keep vocal about what you would like to see in FW in the future as we build all our decisions on feedback from you guys. Nice post, it's good to see CCP responding on the forums. Now, can we have some word from CCP in this post please? I would love to hear what CCP intend to do about this situation.
khosta	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:14:00 - [47] Originally by: CCP Zulupark You'll be happy to hear I do very little game balancing these days Speaking of which, do you consider your nerf to sensor dampeners a success? (the strength part, not the script element) Do you feel that they are balanced with respect to other types of ECM now? What do you think of the price and usage of the gallente recons? (and other ewar ships)
Xavier Zedicus Priory of Zorrabed	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:42:00 - [48] Well i tried a Lvl 1 FW mission once when all the way in a cruiser no cruiser allowed cam back, got my frigate, and there where 10 dessies and 3 cruiser s in the mission all within 10k of the warp in point!
An Anarchyyt Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:43:00 - [49] Originally by: khosta Originally by: CCP Zulupark You'll be happy to hear I do very little game balancing these days Speaking of which, do you consider your nerf to sensor dampeners a success? (the strength part, not the script element) Do you feel that they are balanced with respect to other types of ECM now? What do you think of the price and usage of the gallente recons? (and other ewar ships) Any yet people wonder why the Devs don't post more.
Miyamoto Uroki Caldari KuhSchubsKlan	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:49:00 - [50] Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 01/09/2008 14:50:39 Originally by: Sheriff Jones Not at all, simply pointing out that if every answer i gave was met with anger and/or flmes, i wouldn't give even breadcrumbs to norty children pfff, so you infact did flame me in some way. Shame on you Big thanks to Zulupark for forwarding this. @FW team Splitting up blobs will be a damn hard task. But your suggestions sounds quite solid: - More people will run complexes because you actually get rewards The downsides that might occur: - Players asking for making it impossible for enemy milita players to dock at their stations are mainly doing so for one specific reason: Enemies are hiding inside their core systems, going afk in THEIR own stations and therefor creating the infamous 0.0 cloaker-of-death syndrom which creates a constant feeling of treat. Plus of course using the stations as safespots. Denying services wouldn't change that. Just deny docking for enemy milita pilots at all. I mean, you made it very easy to exit FW immediately, not to mention that contracting your stuff to someone else outside your militia is very easy. It's just that the main, FW player cannot dock to get safe in enemy systems anymore. That's the whole deal. So that enemies actually would have to either log out in space or get back into their space after a raid. - Making running complexes more worthwhile because of real rewards is good, but I don't see that it would change that much in terms of blob warfare. As long as every gangmember who is inside the plex when it gets captured gets equal Victory Points, I don't see the need to split up your blob, as you still get the same VP as doing it solo or in a small gang, not to mention the safety a blob gives. On the other hand, if you do a lets say hardcapped limit of players receiving VP for conquering a given complex, that would actually encourage players to split up on multiple complexes and therefor multiple systems.
Flash Bombardo	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:50:00 - [51] Yay! CCP are listening. OK, heres what I want: MAKE THE SHIPS CHEAPER !
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:51:00 - [52] Originally by: Megan Maynard It's hard to PVP if there are no targets, it's getting to the point now where you either see large blob every 4 hours, or crickets. HENCE, the reasoning for the post. I Think you have things confused. Your in the mimtard militia, I'm in the Amarr militia.Your complaining about a lack of targets on your side. On our side its a lack of targets as well. I've been busy for over a week so I'm not sure anything has changed or not, i doubt it. When ever we roll a group of about 5 ships, we find nothing. We go look for a plex to kill time and get some points. We get spotted by a mimtard. That mimar player reports us to militia chat. Mimtar militia then gathers a group with no less the 3times our numbers. If for some reason the mimtar group does not have 3 to 1 odds against us they run until backup shows up. Not only does the mimtar use superior numbers they make sure to have better ships then the Amarr group they have someone follow around. Only after they have 3 times the ships and better ships do the mimtar dare to engage. If you want more targets then the mimtar need to change how they operate. My corp will go out there and we can tell when you guys are going to grow the sack to fight, it strangely goes along with the huge spike in local with WTs. If its anything less the mimtar will not fight. This leaves us with 2 choices. 1. fight knowing we are going to face a group that took its time to organize 30 people in t2 ships to face our group of t1 ships. Fight and know we are going to take 100% losses. 2.Try and take out what we can and gtfo, if we can't kill anything then try to preserve as much of our group as possible and gtfo. If the mimtar didn't leave Amarr players with just those 2 choices, you would see a lot more fights. Not just big fleets or crickets but smaller groups roaming around looking for other small groups. having outbreak and others leave the mimtar militia actually helps you guys out. There always seems to be more mimtar active then Amarr for obvious reasons as well as the above. I don't mind losing, I don't use stuff i cant replace about 100times over. What kind of sucks the fun out of things is knowing the only way to get a fight is either to wait around for a fleet or to condemn yourself to being popped,podded by a group that won't engage without massive advantages. So if theres a complaint about fw, its something the devs will have a hard time fixing because its player generated. I doubt adding rewards will make players want to constantly face such ******ed odds. If a side that is outnumbered could make isk doing something FW related then the side with superior numbers will always make more isk. That will always leave the smaller side at a massive disadvantage especially over time. Again i doubt that it has anything to do with rewards or lack of such. The only thing CCP can do is artificially cap systems or plexes so things become balanced. If ccp were to slap on a fixed or adjustable player cap for the 2nd group to show up then we would see fights that are "even". If you give players "even" fights then they will be encouraged to use smaller groups. example: Medium plex: ships allowed:frig-t2frig cap,attacker:10players cap,defenders,plex still has rats: 5players cap,defenders,all rats are dead:10-12players The plex would adjust based on the number of attackers, say mimtar are attacking an amarr plex with 5 ships. Amarr militia can get 2 ships into the plex while rats are alive,6 if the rats are dead. If 1 of the amarr gets popped his ship no longer goes against the cap. That allows another amarr to replace him. To keep things "fair" add a 10-30second timer on the gate activation after the ship is lost. It might suck for people at first because they will have to learn to fight without massive advantages. Some might say "oh you want fair, go play wow!". something like this might help fw from getting boring though.
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:51:00 - [53] Edited by: SoftRevolution on 01/09/2008 14:53:04 Cheers for the post Flatboy. Guess I'll have to look at plexes some... although I'm uncertain what I'd want to bring. I mean they've got rats to it's kind of PvE but then there's players to shoot so it's of PvP.
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.09.01 14:58:00 - [54] Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Flash Bombardo I was a carebear. Now I'm a FW scout/pennyless cannon fodder. Must be something right about FW then. Its just very very expensive, I've lost about 30 million in three FW sessions and I havent fired a shot yet ! I'd be interested to know how you achieved this. Losing lots of money (which one cannot afford to lose) seems quite common in FW and ... shouldn't be. One time I brought four separate ships to the same long-running battle, all of which I lost, for a total cost of approx 16M. All were cruiser or larger. you lost cruisers or larger and only burned 16mil? 4 cruisers alone would be 16mil or more isk. Go for moas or thoraxes and your bound to break 20mil easy without fittings or insurance. Larger ships shouldn't even be available for 16mil. A ferox goes for about 19mil without fittings so how you got cruisers or larger for 16mil i have no idea. Just send me the system you bought these ships from, im going to drop a lot of isk for some ships there
SOFcode Z777 Caldari Human Enhancement Tech.	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:01:00 - [55] Originally by: CCP Zulupark As to the point of there not being an incentive to doing this or that in FW; it was always supposed to be about the PVP. Let me see if I understand this right, you're saying that FW , for you, at this point is nothing more then PVP. Meaning I can be in FW, or go pirate in low sec or keep going with a 0.0 alliance because the outcome is exactly the same in your view. Dissapointing declaraction of intention there. The whole seeling of FW supposed to be rich in history, supposed to have an impact in eve role play and incentive it to become more focused into it, instead you come here and say it's all old same PVP issue only? People who are seeking hard core PVP is not in FW. You¦ll find them in 0.0 space as such. Or do you think this kind of players are the ones having patience to go and stay orbiting plexes for 20 min waiting a wt to arrive ? So you discard the hard core pvp majority with fw mechanism, and also discard the ones who came for RP ( no rp purpose, just pew pew as your statement says ) and also discard the PVE players ( missions are just supposed to be boring and , well pew pew?) Basicaly, Zulupark, who is public then that you're trying to reach for FW?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:01:00 - [56] Originally by: khosta Originally by: CCP Zulupark You'll be happy to hear I do very little game balancing these days Speaking of which, do you consider your nerf to sensor dampeners a success? (the strength part, not the script element) Do you feel that they are balanced with respect to other types of ECM now? What do you think of the price and usage of the gallente recons? (and other ewar ships) It was CCP Nozh and CCP Fendahl that made the sensor damp change, I have to defer all comments about that to them :)


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:04:00 - [57] Originally by: SOFcode Z777 Originally by: CCP Zulupark As to the point of there not being an incentive to doing this or that in FW; it was always supposed to be about the PVP. Let me see if I understand this right, you're saying that FW , for you, at this point is nothing more then PVP. Meaning I can be in FW, or go pirate in low sec or keep going with a 0.0 alliance because the outcome is exactly the same in your view. Dissapointing declaraction of intention there. The whole seeling of FW supposed to be rich in history, supposed to have an impact in eve role play and incentive it to become more focused into it, instead you come here and say it's all old same PVP issue only? People who are seeking hard core PVP is not in FW. You¦ll find them in 0.0 space as such. Or do you think this kind of players are the ones having patience to go and stay orbiting plexes for 20 min waiting a wt to arrive ? So you discard the hard core pvp majority with fw mechanism, and also discard the ones who came for RP ( no rp purpose, just pew pew as your statement says ) and also discard the PVE players ( missions are just supposed to be boring and , well pew pew?) Basicaly, Zulupark, who is public then that you're trying to reach for FW? What I was commenting on there was that FW was not supposed to revolve around mission running, rather that PVP was to be the big thing and mission running a smaller feature of FW. Of course FW isn't just about PVP, there's a whole lot of storyline and world interaction going on as well.

NeoTheo Dark Materials	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:10:00 - [58] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: khosta Originally by: CCP Zulupark You'll be happy to hear I do very little game balancing these days Speaking of which, do you consider your nerf to sensor dampeners a success? (the strength part, not the script element) Do you feel that they are balanced with respect to other types of ECM now? What do you think of the price and usage of the gallente recons? (and other ewar ships) It was CCP Nozh and CCP Fendahl that made the sensor damp change, I have to defer all comments about that to them :) and any progress on making the server support 50 vrs 50 fights? if not please nerf gang size.
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:10:00 - [59] I used to be quite interested in FW. Had some ideas about how to improve it, hell I have ideas about a lot of things (though I'm mostly quiet seeing how people seem to care more about a dreadnought in high sec than the overall quality of the game..). Thought I'd post in a few suggestions I wrote down a while ago, though some things will most likely already be on your things to consider list. Including ways of making certain FW objectives more profitable, to help deracinate an emerging dichotomy of 'fighting on the front' and 'going to run L4s to make money' syndrome. E.g. give pilots isk as a reward for plexes they complete. Rank fluidity: - It should be possible to lose rank, i.e. there should be a limited number of pilots in the highest ranks - based on all-time VP figures. This creates a kind of natural hierarchy, and makes ranks mean something more. It also means pilots cannot sit on the laurels of their past achievements. This will mean that 'current' activity counts, but 'old' activity is not discarded. - Naturally, the aforementioned means it is harder (and may become too hard) for future pilots additions to the militia to be promoted to higher ranks. While this is natural for real organisations, it may become unfair. Thus there needs to be a scaling system, whereby VPs earned earlier count less towards your current total on a gradual scale - this also implies you can lose rank if you do not continue to 'plex for x amount of time (either that or your rank shows 'retired' - You should be able to refuse a promotion (see the hit jobs) Rank diversity and medals: - A linear system exists at present that merely gives ranks for VPs, but no medals to recognise other achievements, (e.g. for the sake of argument) such as century kill (100th), endurance medal (for work behind enemy lines), capture medal (for taking part in the capture of a control bunker). I noticed this was also mentioned in the Dev response. - Also, medals for certain epic battles would be good, but I can't see a way that this can be implemented Perks of the job (Rank has its privelages): - Make a loyalty point store for the militias, with items available based on rank, all costing a combination of loyalty points (gained with victory points) and tags/isk, as normal stores function. - Give pilots of x rank and above access to better quality services in a station: e.g. better refining, better rental prices etc Rank visibility: Make rank more visible - e.g. a small icon next to the name in militia chat? or some other kind of visibility enhancing modification? Also, make it visible in the overview - shoot the officers first! (how deliciously unsporting), also useful for the assassination idea. Multiple objectives complexes - I.e. compound complexes that require gangs to simultaneously hold more than one location at once for the timer to work/be considered as completed. These components may be located in more than one system. This may help split blobs in FW. - Make complexes have an effect on the constellation's vulnerability rather than just the system, if the multiple of objective complex is used - these would work in parallel with the current system, be worth much more, yet much harder to complete
Verone Gallente Veto Corp	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:12:00 - [60] Originally by: CCP Zulupark What I was commenting on there was that FW was not supposed to revolve around mission running, rather that PVP was to be the big thing and mission running a smaller feature of FW. Of course FW isn't just about PVP, there's a whole lot of storyline and world interaction going on as well. Are there still plans to introduce the pirate factions, and the subfaction such as the Ammatar Mandate and Khanid Kingdom into Faction Warfare?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.