Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Revelation Space
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 08:19:00 -
[91]
It is not possible to get your standing to 8 with every race any more |
Kade Jeekin
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 09:15:00 -
[92]
Yes, Elsebeth Rhiannon. A system where station access and services are all dependent on corporation/faction standings, depending on which is lower, seems a logical extension of what happens in 0.0. ie sovereignty holding alliance sets entry fees and service fees on standing and actually denies access to those with negative standing.
Also, re FW plexes and missions, how about linking the complex generation to mission completion. ie doing away with the probe-able complexes. A complex is only generated in the system when a mission has been completed there, the complex will be the same level as the mission completed.
So, at a stroke, PVE is required to start the process and the enemy have two opportunities to defend the system - once in the mission and one in the spawned complex?
The mission and complex could both set off automatic alerts in the enemy militia chat. With multiple mission/complex alerts going on the pilots would need to divide up between them - reducing blob, perhaps? |
Telemicus Thrace
Thrace Inc Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:48:00 -
[93]
I scan read most of this thread, it's late, busy with RL etc. So forgive me if I am repeating anything.
I would like to see:
- Alliances able to participate - I understand the reasons why we are locked out but for RP groups like Ushra'Khan it feels too strange to not be able to take part more directly than war deccing member corps. Maybe the ability to war dec the whole Amarr militia? or if we dec one milita member corp the others can counter dec for free?
- Fringe NPC Groups - Yeah, I know it's coming soon. It makes more sense for me for instance to be flying with the Thukker rather than the Republic, even with Shakor at the helm.
- More RP - This was one of the big draws for me. But I have not seen any Milita news since the first couple of weeks. Story arcs, GM special missions, lets have some of that.
- Free the slaves! - What happened to the POS modules for making / freeing slaves? I would like to see those RPing slavers to be moving slaves around and us having the means to really free them.
HTH, just some feedback since the lines of blue asked. |
Roc Wieler
Freeform Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:58:00 -
[94]
To Flatboy,
I like the idea of not being able to use enemy station services, even though I am still a fan of not being able to dock their at all. It's a decent comprimise.
One incentive for rank I would really like to see, and would be beneficial to militia FCs is the ability to "reprimand" insuboordinate pilots within the militia.
Militia is duty. Militia is enlistment. Militia is not part-time funcakes pew pew!
I think if a FC possessing one of the top three achievable ranks gives an order in militia chat, pilots need to respond. If not, maybe they can be grounded for a set period of time? Maybe penalized isk? I am sure there are other creative ways to punish them for insuboordination.
Of course, to make this realistic and not abused, those possessing those ranks would need to be visible to our own militia, and a points type of system would have to be in place.
For example: Militia General gets 1000 discipline points per week. To ground a pilot (very harsh) takes 750 points. To deduct a certain amount of isk from a pilot (100 isk). Again, some creative thinking could come up with really motivational ways to get pilots to participate.
On the other hand, it could prevent them from signing up all together. But really, I'd rather have willing pilots than carebears in my militia anyway. |
Kovid
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:10:00 -
[95]
Originally by: CCP Flatboy
We are at war! All the empires are in chaos. Regions are being disputed. And while sovereignty is not being affected systems are being occupied. Why not make the consequences matter in game and in story. CCP always seems to get stuck on people's stuff being vulnerable to stations not being accessible. I cite outposts blowing up and the Malaken incident with the mothership in the storyline. Granted those also have to do with the markets as they are more permanent. However this is different. With a system being occupied it might be completely different from changing hands. If a system becomes occupied why would the power in it give access during war to the opposing militia? CCP, you made it easy to get into FW, and easy to leave. If people have stuff stuck in it before they joined, it's easy enough to leave and fix that or to contract it to out of militia alts. Provide an addendum to the pre joining warning and you're set.
Besides the lack of rewards people don't see there is any end in sight. And when push come to shove nothing will change. People come and go and systems may change hands but in all honesty the perception is occupancy means nothing and sovereignty plus no rewards means nothing. Yes there are reporters following militias and putting up stories. But can you honestly tell players, and show them you mean it, what effort they put in it matters long term?
A couple possible suggestions on complexes. If you want to give more information on getting people to where the fight is make a beacon solid filled like a wreck if there is a player in it similar to a wreck, and visa versa. And the forced warped to zero on beacons seem to be harsh. If you want to promote fights in and around complexes then forcing everyone at zero might be keeping people from going there. |
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:23:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Garia666 on 02/09/2008 13:23:41
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Sheriff Jones I would love if a GM came in and said:
"No."
We won't do that.
But seriously, there is new stuff planned for FW in the future.
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. The missions for example were supposed to be an incentive to go into enemy space and get blown up or shoot other players. It was never meant to become ultra-profitable.
Like someone else said here, the incentive to PVP should be the PVP itself :)
agents should give out the same goals.
Let say agent 1 of faction A
says
We have a critial misisons to all faction kind bla bla bla.. Destroy item A @ 19:00 eve time ( Exact location will be given at that time.. )
Then Agent 2 of Faction B gives out a simmilar mission..
Says
We have word of actack defend at all cost! Get to A and defend it @ 18:50
..
I think in such a way it will be great fun..
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:24:00 -
[97]
Just shuffle people's stuff off the stations if you make that change.
Put it in the fluff text as something CONCORD required when making the settlement.
Something I would like to see for FW is wardec'ing changed so if you dec one corp in FW you're dec'ing all of them.
It's a tad frustrating when you can't shoot at something because your gangmate isn't a corpmate. |
Sweet Rosella
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:01:00 -
[98]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote: Like someone else said here, the incentive to PVP should be the PVP itself :)
Wait, what?
How about a -real- incentive? Going in and getting your ships blown up just for lulz sucks. I'd like something other than a glorified WoW battleground.
Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though
What incentive would you like to see?
Perhaps to see some improvements made in FW, rather than broken promises and cheap talk.
|
Kovid
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:38:00 -
[99]
What about linkg FW missions to the nearest FW system with an opposing faction player in your complex? Agents could be directly involved in getting troops to trouble spots and giving mission rewards for doing it?
Maybe you could make a distinction between regular missions and these more "locator"-like like missions.
|
Vyktor Abyss
IONSTAR
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:47:00 -
[100]
Rather than player bounties - what about player "dog tags", and a reward system based on enemy rank and rarity.
So for example:
Joe Bloggs of Caldari Faction over time becomes a fearsome killer with 1000 kills and no losses. He has bags of daily VPs and gains top rank by running masses of complexes.
A dogtag gathered from the wreck after popping Joe is worth perhaps "commander tag" to the Gallente Faction?
However the dogtag from podding Walt McAlt is worth nothing since he gets next to no VPs daily, has never killed any enemy ships and has lowest rank. What do you think?
This system is probably still abusable - but could make the PVP part more interesting by rewarding PVP.
|
|
SOFcode Z777
Caldari Human Enhancement Tech.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:07:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Rather than player bounties - what about player "dog tags", and a reward system based on enemy rank and rarity.
So for example:
Joe Bloggs of Caldari Faction over time becomes a fearsome killer with 1000 kills and no losses. He has bags of daily VPs and gains top rank by running masses of complexes.
A dogtag gathered from the wreck after popping Joe is worth perhaps "commander tag" to the Gallente Faction?
However the dogtag from podding Walt McAlt is worth nothing since he gets next to no VPs daily, has never killed any enemy ships and has lowest rank. What do you think?
This system is probably still abusable - but could make the PVP part more interesting by rewarding PVP.
Problem with that is players getting in and out of fw all the time as they see fit. when you leave fw you lose your ranks, so you could simply rejoin as a lower rank to avoid such things. too open for explot imo There is no hesitation. Because a second wasted, is gone forever.
Mordus Legion |
GT Saleswoman
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:32:00 -
[102]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Sheriff Jones I would love if a GM came in and said:
"No."
We won't do that.
But seriously, there is new stuff planned for FW in the future.
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. The missions for example were supposed to be an incentive to go into enemy space and get blown up or shoot other players. It was never meant to become ultra-profitable.
Like someone else said here, the incentive to PVP should be the PVP itself :)
If this were the case, then there would have been no good reason to add FW in the first place. You've got the stick currently, but it's missing the carrot. If your logic were even vaguely in tune with the community then all those that signed up for FW would have already been in low or null security space getting their pew pew on.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:18:00 -
[103]
Holy crap a response!
%#)(*^)^$@*2008.09.02 02:31:00^)#*&^
Still don't understand the reasoning of: Pvp is the reason you pvp and you shouldn't need incentives.
I pvp all the time, but if I'm doing a mission, in order to pvp as you put it, it should be a little more in depth. PVP with a goal. A.K.A. MISSION. Making the mission and pvp correspond with each other would make FW even better, not weaken it.
Trust me, I enjoy blowing stuff up as much as any other person (See: T1 frigate blobs.) but part of me also wants the strategic and RP elements all tied together. Don't make them necessary for each other to function, but don't make them so separated they are worthless on their own. You know, United they stand, divided they fall kind of thing.
The VP's make absolutely no sense. We close 1 major, system goes contested, we close 2 more majors in the same system, one wt comes in, closes a minor and the system goes uncontested.
What?
Quit messing with us Devs and just freaking tell us how the VP system works. It's hard enough to take a system, not knowing how the mechanic works is driving us batty.
Currently we know: Take more complexes in a system then the enemy and eventually it'll go vulnerable. What kind of crap is that?
Do POS's suddenly go into siege mode after you shoot it for a random who knows amount of time?
Does someones ship die after you, "shoot it for a while then it'll explode if you shoot it enough."
NO. We have indicators, or a way of judging our progress. Blobs of light on the map, that reset after downtime are NOT helpful.
|
Qduhaf
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:44:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Qduhaf on 02/09/2008 16:45:19 I applaud response to this thread, first that I am aware that a deve has said they cared about FW since release (thatÆs 3 months!) In the software world 3 months is a long time, and without a transition from FW 11.0 to 1.1 in that period of time you do suspect that the developers are concerned, so IÆd like to see some changes made to FW fast. Below are several proposals that think you could institute quickly (donÆt see how the would require any code changes) to address your stated objectives. Originally by: CCP Flatboy The first and second priorities right now are of course putting in some real rewards and breaking up the blobs.
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. We want to make it easier for those who want PvP to destroy those that want to run complexes without a fight.
In your design you should set a goal of reward payments for FW plexers. For example running FW complexes should pay 2.5M isk/hour for a frig/dessie, 5M isk/ hour cruiser/T2 frig sized shipand 7.5M for a hac/bs . ISK/hr of course includes bounties and LPs.
To break up the blob you need to make FW complexes so that 1) require a gang complete (scaled so it requires 3-4). 2) rewards donÆt scale with numbers. You donÆt see much group ratting because its designed so 1 person can complete, and rewards are fixed, so if you rat in pairs you reduce your isk/hour by 50%. If complexes could be run by 3 ships, bring a 4th means your isk/hr was reduced by 25% bring 6 means you get same 50% reduction in isk.
So my sugegstions for a quick fix: òMake mission and complex rats give LPs or isk òRequire that a high level NPC be defeated (last of a series of spawns), make that NPC drop something of value (2-3M isk for minor, 20m for major complexes). This eliminates speed tanking only. òAward LP and rank points for complex divided by particapants òIntroduce warp scrambling batteries/rats into complexes, as it stands now you wonÆt get caught in the complex in the time that it takes to enter local, warp to beacon and then through the gate. òGive each faction a separate gate and warp in point for complexes so the warp to 0 advantage isnÆt always with the defender. Remove complexes from anyone that isnÆt in FW, and prevent any warps to opposing faction warp point (prevent dual accounts from using ôFW spyö to gang warp opposing faction to camp the warp in. òScale rewards for certain systems, meaning that capturing a complex near the front lines paid you 3x what it would for capping a backwater system plex.
I think these would help and donÆt seem to be code changing requirements (well preventing warp to different gates would), but ultimately some form of crowd control limits might need to be put in place as blob mentality is so prevalent in EVE (there are no penalties associated with having 30-300 ships operating in close range). So you might have to look at artificial mentions of capping number of participants from each side 9while introducing measures that prevent ôFW spyö accounts from clogging the systems.
Longer term IÆd like to see PVP missions, which would be like mini-alliance tournament setups that direct two opposing gangs to complete a mission, one as attacker and one as a defender. This would really let the very complex ship selection and fitting that is possible in EVE come forward. Right now its really a matter of who has the most and biggest (or fastest until the speed nerf).
And yes, remove docking for FW stations to opposing faction altogether, if you give people a month heads-up, they have no complaints that there items are stuck.
|
Lone Gunman
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:34:00 -
[105]
Another problem is that last night I scanned every system in 3 Constellations about 30 systems for Militia complexes. Now only 7 were contested, but using multispectral probes there were no complexes in any of those systems. I went to around my uncontested home system and scanned for dead space complexes and there were militia complexes in all three of the uncontested systems I probed.
Also if I fly with a gang some systems show contested and to other gang members the same system will show uncontested.
|
rodgerd
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 08:44:00 -
[106]
Originally by: CCP Flatboy
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. ;)
I read this and needed a tissue. This makes me happy in my pants.
Not necessarily the opinions of my corp. |
rodgerd
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 08:59:00 -
[107]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
What incentive would you like to see?
Grants of LP tied to militia points.
Discounts at station services & LP stores tied to FW standing.
Station services available only to militia members with necessary standing (e.g. Empire research slots in stations requiring a 4 or 6 or whatever standing to use).
Not necessarily the opinions of my corp. |
Sturmwolke
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 10:54:00 -
[108]
Originally by: CCP Flatboy
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.
Suggestion - Rather than refine the difficulty level for FW missions, scrap the (pitiful) ISK rewards for missions and replace it instead with VPs that contributes towards system capture. This should be inline with the CCP's PVP goal, but at the same time makes missions much more viable as an alternative option over the standard "scan plex & capture".
As a bonus, you'll be eliminating all that "FW mission rewards sucks" threads that pop up from time to time. In addition, this effectively simplifies the FW reward mechanisms. No need for a disjointed & half-dead ISK reward concept to be muddying the waters.
About the only issue that I can foresee (for the above) is blobbing with big ships. Afaik, mission areas are not ship class limited.
|
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 15:56:00 -
[109]
Flatboy, your comments are a light in a dark tunnel
Only thing I would suggest is instead of limiting services (or perhaps as well as) charge players a docking fee based on the size of their ship when docking at a station controlled by a hostile faction and decrease tax and refining loss at stations owned by a friendly faction. --
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:02:00 -
[110]
Edited by: delor on 03/09/2008 18:05:23
Originally by: CCP Flatboy
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. ;)
This really isn't a good analysis of the situation. Local already makes it apparent where the targets are, and a decent sized fleet (12+ ships) can scout all of the complexes in an area fairly rapidly. The problem is finding a fight where both sides are willing to engage. (or the unwilling side is unable to retreat) A fairly large portion of the time I've spent in FW was spent under enemy scouts watching my fleet in local, and if that alone was enough to trigger a fight I'd be a much more happy camper.
Better intel would help, certainly, but the fact that it tends to degenerate into one side with a larger fleet that the other side avoids is a larger problem.
Quote: 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.
Rank rewards are inherently an infrequent payoff with a limited number of steps. Also, if just having the rank grants you the rewards an obvious strategy is to grind to the rank you want and then go off to do something else that is more profitable, which is contrary to the goal of wanting people to actively participate in FW to facilitate PvP.
I could imagine how it could be made to work by combining rapid rank deterioration with some sort of ongoing rank-based reward, but you might just want to consider actually giving some sort of payoff for capturing contested 'plexes and destroying enemy ships.
Quote: As you may have noticed our strategy is to lure people into the complexes and thus get them away from the blobs.
This is a good approach overall, even if I think the ways you've suggested of doing it are poor tools for the job. Reward capturing plexes to encourage people to spread out and farm as many as possible, to provide a environment with multiple, smaller targets.
One final thought: consider removing NPCs from the plexes. They force the players to bring a minimum level of force to capture a plex and an even larger amount of force if they want to fight any enemy militia that come to fight them while capturing it. This works against your objective of encouraging force dispersion.
My suggestion would be to only spawn NPCs at the actual control bunkers rather than the little plexes. Since the control bunkers spawn when a side is losing, the NPCs will provide some natural backup for the side that is losing to help encourage an entertaining fight.
|
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:13:00 -
[111]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Originally by: Sheriff Jones I would love if a GM came in and said:
"No."
Like someone else said here, the incentive to PVP should be the PVP itself :)
So what is CCP's opinion when it comes to PvP? "Risk vs. Reward" or "PvP is fun so you need to do it"
<3 Trebor
|
delor
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:47:00 -
[112]
Edited by: delor on 03/09/2008 18:52:52
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
Blowing other people up for lulz is fun though
Absolutely! However, getting blown up without accomplishing anything is considerably less so, so as long as one side feels it can't accomplish anything and can run away we don't have any PvP. If I could jump into a "fair" fight at the click of a button, I wouldn't need any reward. Since I don't see that happening in EVE, though, using rewards as a carrot to create an environment that facilitates PvP seems like the best approach.
PvP IS its own reward. Every fight isn't equally rewarding, however, much less equally rewarding for every potential participant.
Quote: What incentive would you like to see?
::snort:: Well, how are you getting people to do PvE missions, 'ratting, and mining? ISK! LP! The things we need to buy ships with which to PvP!
The hard question isn't what incentives to offer, but rather how to offer them in a fashion that actually encourages PvP.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 19:34:00 -
[113]
I would actually like to see milita stations shoot at war milita members in low sec instead of letting them dock.
I love the idea of with rank comes intel.
I think there should be more startic targets available for destruction in fw, ie taking out data center decreases intel, taking out shipyards or fueling stations lower npc forces in the area.
I think there should be special LP gear store rewards that help out FW such as a deployable sentry controller that could be anchored at the gates, this will retask the gate guns to fire on enemy milita until its destroyed.
I think the LP store for milita only should have a special requirement of rank (placed in items or something similar.
If not at least LP point reduction for higher ranks to help keep factional gear affordable and more used out on the field.
System control needs to effect empire more globally, such as removal of certain LP store rewards (the navy is losing the war and has stopped the release of thier gear to the LP stores to be used on the front lines,) this could be used as a further incentive to join up.
New Ship Idea: Tender Supply Ship, The Logistics Sister |
Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari KuhSchubsKlan
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 10:14:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Telemicus Thrace I scan read most of this thread, it's late, busy with RL etc. So forgive me if I am repeating anything.
I would like to see:
- Alliances able to participate - I understand the reasons why we are locked out but for RP groups like Ushra'Khan it feels too strange to not be able to take part more directly than war deccing member corps. Maybe the ability to war dec the whole Amarr militia? or if we dec one milita member corp the others can counter dec for free?
- Fringe NPC Groups - Yeah, I know it's coming soon. It makes more sense for me for instance to be flying with the Thukker rather than the Republic, even with Shakor at the helm.
- More RP - This was one of the big draws for me. But I have not seen any Milita news since the first couple of weeks. Story arcs, GM special missions, lets have some of that.
- Free the slaves! - What happened to the POS modules for making / freeing slaves? I would like to see those RPing slavers to be moving slaves around and us having the means to really free them.
HTH, just some feedback since the lines of blue asked.
Awesome ideas, especially the slave pos module thingy. Never heard of that one before. Get it in, ccp..
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 19:44:00 -
[115]
*laughs, because it's taken the rest of Eve over 2 months to realise*
- Putting more than a dozen pilots in the same location, and asking them to shoot each other, just ends up in laggy nofun.
- Location based ping-pong is dull
- Building mega-blobs for hours, only to lag out, is funfunfun
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Seeing EyeDog
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 19:55:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Megan Maynard Pilots are leaving in droves
I said it from day one...the most interesting thing about FW was the storyline that unfolded during downtime of that patch. CCP have this unfettering penchant for makinng something great and ignoring it. FW is just a microcosm of how CCP run their game. _____________________
Originally by: Locus Bey Intelligence isn't a prequisite for being a Goon, in fact its a deficit.
|
Burkmat
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 09:47:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CCP Flatboy
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.
Stop being so damned nice!
The primary reason I play this game is that harsh unforgiving world we're supposed to be playing in. Kill people who are docked when a Nyx crashes into the station! Wipe out their assets! You guys didn't even disable that station, quite the disappointment.
Why on earth would you let your enemies dock in a station you've conquered?
Stop being so soft and cuddly... Give us blood, give us the harsh painful hell we try to survive in. |
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 12:41:00 -
[118]
You mean there really is a war going on? I thought it was just a rumor
I was really looking forward to FW. I haven't strapped a PvP fit on a ship in almost 2 years. I thought it would be a great way to get back into it without having to , or put up with the lag-o-matic that is 0.0. All I've heard since about 3 days after it came out, though, is a high-pitched whining sound coming from the general direction of Black Rise.
I really wish they'd put a rewards system in place that would rival the isk/hr of level 4s (assuming your side is doing well). Capsuleers are supposed to be privateers in this thing, if you read the back story. They should be getting fistfulls of cash and war booty if they're capturing systems for their side.
Oh, and CCP? For Crissakes, either let alliances in, or keep them out. Don't let a few of them back-door their way in.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 13:07:00 -
[119]
Couple of other things:
I think that when a system is captured, it should start increasing in sec status. The longer it remains occupied, the higher it goes, until finally the faction navy moves in after it goes to .5 or above. It has then gone from "occupied" to "secured".
I second whoever said that the opposing faction shouldn't have docking rights, but I think that should only be true in "secured" or regular high-sec systems. Would stop the "fly there in a pod, then attack" exploit.
|
Malena Panic
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 15:04:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Malena Panic on 06/09/2008 15:04:10
Originally by: CCP Flatboy 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.
However, being able to dock at an enemy's base is immersion-breaking. Getting locked out of your stuff is exactly the kind of harsh penalty that attracts a lot of people to Eve.
Originally by: Faraelle Brightman Have you considered adding, for example, a skill that would basicly allow people to fake their way into atations they couldn't otherwise get into?
Could be a good way to repurpose the currently redundant 'Criminal Connections' skill. ... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |