These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: Factional Warfare

First post First post
Author
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#261 - 2012-04-09 16:12:30 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Soundwave bashing. Best bashing.


While this is a public forum and everyone's free to share their thoughts, these kind of comments aren't very helpful. I posted the interview so people could post specific feedback on his proposed direction for Faction Warfare, not so everyone can call him an idiot. It's fine that you feel that way, I need to know why you feel that way.



CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#262 - 2012-04-09 16:52:21 UTC
Where to start ..

Because he thought that Gold Ammo™ would be an awesome feature to add to Nex .. until winds changed and swept his opinion along with it (Populism)
Because he thought that FW would be better if high-sec navies were removed .. affecting primarily noobs who pushed the end-of-tutorial button and having no impact on FW as a whole (Ignorance)
Because he thinks that making datacores an FW item will act as an auto-balancer for the militias .. ignoring the fact that Eve is highly FoTM/FoTY oriented and that the datacore intensive T2 items are semi-rarely used (Stupidity)
Because he believes that introducing null mechanics to lowsec/FW will somehow help .. ignoring the fact that a lot of the mechanics work in null due to numbers, bubbles et al. and that null itself has been fed up with many of the things he wants to use as solutions (EHP grinds, really!?!)
Because he has yet to deliver the promised blog detailing their thought processes, design goals and so forth in regards to FW .. the promise was made on his behalf as a Hail Mary move after CCP stood the FW round table up at last years FF

Not a big fan his as you can probably hear[:)

Here is hoping that they manage to make null worth it again so I can justify keeping the client patched, because the quite frankly random changes they want to introduce as fixes to FW are like giving CPR to a carcass on beach.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#263 - 2012-04-09 21:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Where to start ..

Because he thought that Gold Ammo™ would be an awesome feature to add to Nex .. until winds changed and swept his opinion along with it (Populism)
Because he thought that FW would be better if high-sec navies were removed .. affecting primarily noobs who pushed the end-of-tutorial button and having no impact on FW as a whole (Ignorance)
Because he thinks that making datacores an FW item will act as an auto-balancer for the militias .. ignoring the fact that Eve is highly FoTM/FoTY oriented and that the datacore intensive T2 items are semi-rarely used (Stupidity)
Because he believes that introducing null mechanics to lowsec/FW will somehow help .. ignoring the fact that a lot of the mechanics work in null due to numbers, bubbles et al. and that null itself has been fed up with many of the things he wants to use as solutions (EHP grinds, really!?!)
Because he has yet to deliver the promised blog detailing their thought processes, design goals and so forth in regards to FW .. the promise was made on his behalf as a Hail Mary move after CCP stood the FW round table up at last years FF

Not a big fan his as you can probably hear[:)

Here is hoping that they manage to make null worth it again so I can justify keeping the client patched, because the quite frankly random changes they want to introduce as fixes to FW are like giving CPR to a carcass on beach.


Come on now, tell us how you really feel. Smile

I'll leave the rest of it alone for now, but I will point out the obvious on a couple of points you raised.

The shift in Data Core aquisition affects me strongly, as one of my main sources of income is T2 invention/production and I have a healthy supply of Research Agents slaving away to try and meet my needs.

Of course, they fall short, and Data Cores often have to be purchased from the markets. Thats rather the point actually.

Right now, nobody really cares what happens in FW, but I can tell you this... if it becomes the main source for Data Cores I (and many others) will care a great deal. It would absolutely be in my best interests to install an alt (or perhaps even my main) in FW. If the largest rewards came from active participation and destruction of players from the opposing faction then that would be my focus.

Truthfully, it would be my focus anyway. I have always been primarily involved on the PVP side of things deep in Null, but for others who have only dabbled in PVP before it would be a strong motivation to give it a try. Greed can be a powerful motivator.

You can also believe that if the supply of T2 vessels becomes compromised (for certain racial ships) as a result, there will be considerable interest from the larger PVP (Null Sec) community as well.

It is this type of motivation of players outside the current FW community that they are trying to inspire, to make FW stronger and healthier than ever before.... to make it actually matter to the community at large for a change.

This also trickles over into your other point about Null sec mechanics not working due to numbers. CCP can't plan for the FW player base to stay as small as it is. If that were the case they wouldn't bother iterating on it at all. They are actively working to make that number grow significantly, and must plan accordingly. Anything else would be irresponsible and short sighted.

A simplified form of Null Sec mechanics (while not perfect) would certain work far better than the current system... and has the advantage of extensive play testing. It also makes sense to familiarize players with the mechanics involved as many will likely move on from FW to Null eventually.

Of course, when those mechanics are looked at again in Null any changes would likely also find their way over to FW as they are related. Meaning FW is much more likely to be iterated on promptly than it would be if it were simply a small closed independant system.

I know change can be scary, but sometimes you need to look at the bigger picture my friend. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

David Caldera
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2012-04-09 22:42:03 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
No, the presenter who gave the FW presentation was CCP Ytterbium.

CCP Soundwave is the lead game designer for EVE Online.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, is there a transcript for that interview somewhere? i can't seem to get it to work.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#265 - 2012-04-10 03:03:49 UTC
2D34DLY4U wrote:
How about a passive LP income for all pilots enrolled in FW?

Soundwave's comment about partially moving the passive datacore farm to FW could then be implemented with less impact.

It's a small thing but could bring more people in...Pirate



Because anyone with the standings can join fw having any sort of passive income is not going to make FW better. It will boost its numbers but will not make it any better.

As far as the datacore idea balancing one side steamrolling the other - I think things like that can be used but they need to be done right. If they are given passively or given for missions then you will just have alts collecting the datacores or farming the missions. In other words all the pvp will effectively end after one side gets the huge numbers advantage and we will only have mission running and alts.

Its even Possible that the winning militia will manipulate this. So lets say caldari steamrolls gallente like they did before. But this time they actually get advantages so its even worse and they stay in power. Then the caldari militia which will be much larger will perhaps start putting thier known alts into gallente so they can collect the datacores. Gallente pilots that are not "blue" to the caldari militia would have a harder time to collect the datacores.

Again just to be clear I think these sorts of things like datacores and unique lp items can be helpful to self correct but if the benefits to winning are too high then one side will still get steamrolled and the other militia will just farm the other militias datacores and lp.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#266 - 2012-04-10 03:21:58 UTC
i somehow don't see why it is bad that one faction is more dominant as the other. It will balance itself to some regard. More pilots, more targets. The weaker militia won't die of. After all its about pvp, only a subset of the members do pve exclusively and if they do... they are just another kind for target.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#267 - 2012-04-10 03:33:49 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
i somehow don't see why it is bad that one faction is more dominant as the other. It will balance itself to some regard. More pilots, more targets. The weaker militia won't die of. After all its about pvp, only a subset of the members do pve exclusively and if they do... they are just another kind for target.



As long as the mechanics allow the smaller side to still try to achieve substantial goals it will be ok. But if the mechanics are like null sec sov mechanics where you really can't do anything unless you have the bigger numbers then it will be a problem. The problem is the war will effectively end.

There are several ideas about how they can start to balance things out if it gets lopsided. These include allowing the side that is losing systems to put larger ships in the plexes to defend their remaining systems.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#268 - 2012-04-10 04:01:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
...

Swapping a soiled diaper for a soiled, but dried diaper does not constitute change and is thus not to be feared .. hated vehemently but not not feared Smile

The datacore scheme (as balancing force) will ONLY work if the acquisition of LP is tied directly to completion of militia related activities, ie. plexing (occupancy) and chastising the enemy (PvP). But here is the kicker, CCP does not want to dictate how people should play the game .. their words .. so a dependency such as that won't happen.
Result: The occupancy war becomes even more lopsided as some militias (those whose T2 items are out-of-style) are left barren, filled with mission whoring characters and whatever hold-outs remain of the old guard. It is pretty much already there, with a vast majority of militias being alts-of-alts sitting in mission bombers all day .. granted they tend to drop decent loot if one can catch them Lol

It is all fine and dandy that they want to plan for FW to expand/succeed, but doing so by adding mechanics that have already been tried and failed (what you call 'extensive playtesting' I suppose Smile) is idiotic. No one, I know, enjoy grinding EHP and no one I know enjoy having their game experience ruined through no fault of their own (the no docking in lost space).
CCP has already shown that they have at least one brain capable of solving the problem by releasing Incursions: activity results are directly tied to numbers used/involved .. dictating that gangs should be as large as possible to save a bit of sanity (EHP grinds) is to put it bluntly - stupid.

It is bad enough that you can blob (FW blob = one gang w. more than other can field, more common than you might think) a constellation and flip the whole thing in one sitting (5-6 hrs) .. and now we are to get Stuffz™ for doing that while the enemy gets pushed to high-sec just to be able to dock?

In short: CCP needs to consult the FW rats/monkeys/tools and figure out what FW actually is before adding stuff that at best changes little and at worst breaks everything.

Doom'n'Gloom, over and out.
Rimase
#269 - 2012-04-10 12:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Should Faction Warfare be "breakable" ?? Should one side be able to overwhelm the other? Do you want market reasons for pilots to get involved with FW??
Nothing in EVE should be breakable by design. How crazy-talk is that?!
(SUGGESTION) What can happen is when an empire is near utter failure, concord may intervene making things much more difficult and criminalizing. If such thing was the happen, and whole empire's militia could become criminals and whole universe would be aware and decide to hunt them down. You'd see the destructors recalling back to low-sec systems, and the repercussions of that is that empires market totally changing against them and other players migrate(Standings) to winning systems. An empire essentially becomes widely-known as criminal to players and their only option is to redeem themselves somehow (FW meta-game side-mission? pirate-hunt for +status? become cannibals?). Such a thing would be entirely rare, probably would never happen but, still, becomes a possibility in EVE.
'Imagine if that happened?'Shocked

One side shouldn't overwhelm the other but the fact is they can and that's the sandbox. The consequent events would be--providing Faction Warfare becomes ever-more popular--would have Militia corporations and whole empires deciding to fight back
What has to happen all games is Control & Balance to be Fair, and for a meta-game perspective of EVE why f*** it up with no Balance and no Control? -- DUST's respawning, limited reward-based and rank-based free ship reimbursements to counter the huge risk of constant dying. Militia could be the cleansing of lowsec, too!
Free incentives must not destabilize economy, though!

I do very much want stations to influence Faction Warfare. Having a station apply a 'military tax' on orders and transactions To and From that station where the solarsystem or constellation is on 'military alert' would greatly influence many players. The market is choked, and so players are to make a decision: profit for self by relocating their trades or invest in station's faction for self for their trades. These taxes fund local militia services in solarsystems (fiction) whilst gives players LP to donate for improvements (game). Main purpose is to encourage Faction Warfare PvP and discourage 'trade capitals'. (Read more)

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#270 - 2012-04-10 16:13:04 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
The datacore scheme (as balancing force) will ONLY work if the acquisition of LP is tied directly to completion of militia related activities, ie. plexing (occupancy) and chastising the enemy (PvP). But here is the kicker, CCP does not want to dictate how people should play the game .. their words .. so a dependency such as that won't happen..


I agree with the first sentence but not with the second.

CCP shapes game play with their mechanics all the time. They want to force people to join gangs instead of pveing solo so they made incursions which makes any other form of pve that you can do solo pale in comparison. They don't want titans shooting subcaps so they nerf them. They want people in player corps not in npcs corps so they add taxes to the npc corps. I can go on.

If they want to preserve the small scale pvp in faction war they can indeed make the datacore scheme tied directly to occupancy plexing and pvp as opposed to missions.

Will this be enough? It depends on how big the rewards for winning the war are and how drastic the disadvantages to losing the war is. We can't really answer this now.



Veshta Yoshida wrote:

It is bad enough that you can blob (FW blob = one gang w. more than other can field, more common than you might think) a constellation and flip the whole thing in one sitting (5-6 hrs) .. and now we are to get Stuffz™ for doing that while the enemy gets pushed to high-sec just to be able to dock?...


Veshta you have allot of good ideas but might I suggest - merely suggest - you are a bit over the top in criticizing every idea that is not your own. You claimed adding alliances would be horrible for faction war. But nothing really bad happened.

You were all doom and gloom when ccp reduced the importance of the post downtime plexing and increased the amount of spawns. But I think this was a good change. It certainly has invigorated plexing and plex related fights.


If anything I think ccp should consider allowing systems to flip faster. Currently the vast majority of militias see people running plexes and don't even bother to stop them even though they have greater numbers in the system. Yes in part this is because there are no consequences right now. But the consequences are coming and most miltias should know this if they are not living in a cave. So why aren't they going in and fighting for the plex?

I think its because there is no sense of urgency. They are thinking well it will take 7 hours before those plexers will be able to actually flip the system assuming they do it optimally and get no resistance. So whatever. Why should we reship into ships that can go into that plex now?

There are 2 things that ccp can do to add a sense of urgency beyond just adding consequences:

1) have the system flip faster.

or

2) Have *some* consequences happen even when the system is not entirely flipped but becomes contested.

I think CCP should fully consider both of these possibilities. Force faction war pilots to fight for plexes, not just after they form a huge blob, but force them to be able to respond to plexing threats immediately. Then the faction war plexing mechanic will have its own dynamic crazy small gang flavor that is different than the static null sec sov warfare.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#271 - 2012-04-10 17:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

The datacore scheme (as balancing force) will ONLY work if the acquisition of LP is tied directly to completion of militia related activities, ie. plexing (occupancy) and chastising the enemy (PvP). But here is the kicker, CCP does not want to dictate how people should play the game .. their words .. so a dependency such as that won't happen.
Result: The occupancy war becomes even more lopsided as some militias (those whose T2 items are out-of-style) are left barren, filled with mission whoring characters and whatever hold-outs remain of the old guard. It is pretty much already there, with a vast majority of militias being alts-of-alts sitting in mission bombers all day .. granted they tend to drop decent loot if one can catch them Lol


Well, that's basically what they are proposing. Under the new system, we will all be rewarded LP based on the value of the PvP ships we kill, and by winning plexes we will be stealing LP from the enemy's control bunker / I-Hub. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “a dependency such as that won’t happen.” If it is doubt that they will follow through, understand that this (LP for plexing and PvP kills) is the bread-and-butter FW improvement we’ve all been waiting for, I’ll fight like hell if they try to backtrack on that offer, but I’ve heard no indication that is the case. As far as I know, we will be paid for killing each other and fighting over plexes.

At least the AI upgrades should take care of the bomber issue, and if they don't, I’ll continue to push on this after Inferno’s release, since the only way that providing economic incentives to get involved in Faction Warfare works well for the existing community is if they close the farming loophole and force quality PvP in the missions / plexes. I promise I’ll be watching closely to see how the new system is gamed.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#272 - 2012-04-10 20:12:15 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Well, that's basically what they are proposing. Under the new system, we will all be rewarded LP based on the value of the PvP ships we kill, and by winning plexes we will be stealing LP from the enemy's control bunker / I-Hub. ...


I hadn't seen the Faction war presentation until I found it on youtube but I was very happy with it. They are going to do allot of things to make faction war better and they are very cognizant of the issues that can arise.

Yes what Hans describes seems to be the case. It seems like for plexing you are actually taking lp from the other side. So if Caldari took all the systems, it is unclear if they could get anymore lp from plexing. Its unclear how you will get lp from doing defensive plexing at all. They need to balance all of this but they are well aware of that and can do this over time.


Another important point of the presentation is that he said they were going to make plexing and pvp better than missions for getting lp!!

Improving the maps and information about where plexing needs to be done is another great improvement. One of the things I hate about the current map is it takes up my whole screen when I enter that mode. Its like unfolding a map and blocking your windshield when you are trying to drive. I wish there were some ways I could more easilly see what systems are getting plexing action. It sounds like they are going to do that.

I actually thought the fanfest presentation was excellent and and I am reassured that ccp is getting on track to make faction war really good.

I think the idea of not being able to dock in any stations in the occupied system is bad, but other than that I think they are on track.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#273 - 2012-04-11 10:48:00 UTC
On the subject of maps, you really should get CCP thinking about the Amarr-Minmatar system layout Hans.

There are too many chokepoints at the moment!

Some of the chokepoint gates are regional gates, and very hard to camp successfully; these ones don't need changing.

e.g. Kourmonen - Auga, Vard - Ezzara, Hofjaldgund - Dal,

However, there are some other non-regional gates that totally dictate movement across the whole zone.

Hofjaldgund - Eszur and Frerstorn - Ardar are the main cuplrits.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#274 - 2012-04-11 13:46:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
On the subject of maps, you really should get CCP thinking about the Amarr-Minmatar system layout Hans.

There are too many chokepoints at the moment!

Some of the chokepoint gates are regional gates, and very hard to camp successfully; these ones don't need changing.

e.g. Kourmonen - Auga, Vard - Ezzara, Hofjaldgund - Dal,

However, there are some other non-regional gates that totally dictate movement across the whole zone.

Hofjaldgund - Eszur and Frerstorn - Ardar are the main cuplrits.




On this point I think its pretty clear that the minmatar will have some advantage if Docking rights are really taken away if a system is occupied by the enemy.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Amarr_VS_Minmatar#sec

Minmatar will always have 2 key staging points that Amarr will never be able to do anything about. Specifically Egghelende which means minmatar will alway be past the hofjalgund choke point. And Gratesier which means they will always be able to base right in our back yard.

Unless CCP intended to specifically give minmatar an advantage these maps were not designed with the idea that you would entirely lose docking rights if a system was taken.

Edit: Actually I guess its not so bad since we have akkio in Minmatar's back yard. But all the same It would be more even if we had a choke point past the hofjalgund chokepoint or at least one into that dal-vard-siseide cluster.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#275 - 2012-04-11 14:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Well, that's basically what they are proposing...

Well yes, they are adding ways to accumulate LP so that 'active' members don't have to mission as much ... but ... the payouts for plexing/killing will have to be very modest to avoid obvious farming/exploitation which leaves missions as the primary source for LP. That is the dependency I want to see and the one I refer to, a superior mission payout for 'active' members so that without killing/plexing the best one can hope for is on par with say low'ish highsec missions.

Unfortunately CCP has stated that they are loathe to dictate how people should play the game and if a person doesn't want to PvP then he should be able to live in XYZ and still be able to make a living and that makes a lot of sense in general .. problem I have with that in relation to FW is that they voluntarily signed up for a goddamn paramilitary force which must be assumed to have fighting as its raison d'etre ..
The effect is as we have all experienced the past few years, what LP we can scrape together when not having fun face melting each other has been devalued some 3-400% since the beginning of the war.

Should be simple enough to have an escrow system filled with 'potential LP' garnered from killing/plexing and redeemed (up to a maximum) when going on a mission, in addition to any LP gained directly from killing/plexing if having a trickle is all important .. personally like to keep business (ISK) and pleasure (Blood) separate when possible but recognize that not all are as me *insert faux snide remark* Big smile
Rewards the actives and allows the lodestones to stay (albeit with far worse risk/reward ratio) thus not compromising CCP reluctance to ruffle any feathers.
Cearain wrote:
...Unless CCP intended to specifically give minmatar an advantage these maps were not designed with the idea that you would entirely lose docking rights if a system was taken.....

I have been trying to bring the discrepancies in geography up for years now, but I fear people think me a bit mad (the medication kind, not the pulsing vein kind! Smile).
Problem is most pronounced on the Amarr/Shakorite front as "the other ones" had a region made especially for FW (Black Rise) .. problem could/should be sorted by doing some map magic similar to what was done to/with/for Caldari .. adding systems to the included Amarr regions/constellations to at least bring the system count a little closer (50% to start I think) and create some 'natural' defensive lines.
Rimase
#276 - 2012-04-12 11:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
Ways to accumulate ISK:


  • (Potential to destroy 'trade capitals'!):- Alerted systems apply additional layer of taxing to service local battle-structures, etc: Tax of Civilians converts to Standing. Tax of Militants are converts to LP (donate to improve local battle & Standing).
  • Successful Combating and Attacking.
  • Completing complex location.
  • Completing Missions (Military Agents only).
  • Part-taking in DUST-related orbital warfare (LP earned only at end of DUST game).
  • Defending strategic locations like Garrison Outposts.
  • Defending your guarded Military-class Cynosural Field.
  • Defending against Incursion waves.
  • Achieving a new Militia rank!


Defending may increase amount of LP earned upon each successful accumulation.
(Encourages defending).

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#277 - 2012-04-12 11:40:05 UTC
Mostly I'm happy with what I hear, I'll have to wait and see before i get all mad(last time it was seeing them no-show)



I have two concern/thoughts


so It appears that that the cause and effect there looking to implement need number we don't have BUT that would push fleet engagement size up as well. What are they going to do to counter that or is that the goal?



Also I hear no news of a FW exclusive navy frigate, and i want one so badly to get the pew pew in and/or with.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#278 - 2012-04-13 02:57:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
I have to say after watching the fanfest presentation again I am very convinced ccp is reading the forums and listening to players. Yes the whole no docking in stations is a bad idea, but it came from these forums. CCP is listening.


Between devs like the excellent one who presented at the fanfest and csm with Hans I am sure they will keep the focus on small scale pvp. Its acrually been a long couple couple of years before I ever felt this good about faction war or eve in general. Its great.

So I think maybe we should throw a few "little things" out:

1) give us a rookie plex. Vanilla t1 frigates are one of the best balanced, cheap and interesting parts of the game. The dessie buff was good and thrashers/hookbills online is ok for the minors but I don't want t1 frigates completely shelved. Give us a rookie plex were we can fight with plain vanilla t1 frigates.

2) Give us the option to include rigs and cargo in the fitting module. Why does this have to do with faction war? Because we are constantly fighting and losing ships. I want to be able to reship fast and move out. My enemies want this too so they can kill me again.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#279 - 2012-04-13 03:09:30 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Soundwave bashing. Best bashing.


While this is a public forum and everyone's free to share their thoughts, these kind of comments aren't very helpful. I posted the interview so people could post specific feedback on his proposed direction for Faction Warfare, not so everyone can call him an idiot. It's fine that you feel that way, I need to know why you feel that way.






Beside this point I would add that when soundwave was asked what he would do if he could do anything in eve he chose working on faction war. So clearly he understands how this can offer something big for new eden.

Don't give devs a hard time for brainstorming with the community. In any brainstorming session there will be some bad ideas but the very idea that the devs are willing to try to include us in the discussion should be something we treat as holy.

I'm not saying don't speak our mind. But lets also be appreciative of people who want to improve the game we love.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#280 - 2012-04-14 20:22:45 UTC
Alrighty Faction Warfare enthusiasts, I need some help here. I'm preparing some feedback for CCP, I need your help on one issue in particular.

This question is especially for the FW mission runners out there, since I don't have alts in all the other factions: What specific NPC's are causing problems with EWAR balancing? I'd like to know which EWAR is used in which missions, or which EWAR should be used to help mitigate "the stealth bomber problem" or other farming issues.

For example: As a Minmatar pilot, I have it waaaaay too easy. The Amarr NPC's only use tracking disruptors on me, so running missions in a bomber is excessively easy. It's almost comical to watch them TD my hound as I grind LP. On the other hand, the Gallente mission runners get permajammed all the time. I'm assuming the Amarr mission runner face target painting from Minmatar NPC's, this preventing them from abusing bombers the way that our Faction can.

Feel free to email your comments / concerns / suggestions, or you can discuss them here. Either works for me, but the important thing is that you are SPECIFIC with me in your feedback.

I will also be reviewing the past threads to mine for this sort of information, but the most efficient way for me to deal with this (and time is of the essence) is to just ask those of you in the other factions to give me a "street level" view of the EWAR balancing problem in FW.

If EWAR is causing problems in plexes as well, let me know ASAP, again with SPECIFIC NPC's mentioned wherever possible. I have only recently become part of the plexing scene, since the downtime spawn issue was fixed. For most of my career, I have not been a big plexer because there wasn't anything to contribute in the time zone I am active in.

Thanks for all your help everyone!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary