These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno Features on Singularity

First post First post
Author
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#481 - 2012-05-03 17:35:59 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Maz3r Rakum wrote:
@CCP

What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion.


Economic pressures begin to encourage people to participate on the side of the losing faction. I believe that there should probalby be more incentives along this line than Data Cores, but that's the general idea.



At best this will mean the losing militia will have an incentive to carebear.

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

Maz3r Rakum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#482 - 2012-05-03 17:39:32 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Maz3r Rakum wrote:
@CCP

What are you guys going to do WHEN one side has all of their systems taken? Keep up the good work, and thinking through your new features to their inevitable conclusion.


Economic pressures begin to encourage people to participate on the side of the losing faction. I believe that there should probalby be more incentives along this line than Data Cores, but that's the general idea.


Economic pressures? We are not talking about control over techmoons here. FW LP as it is right now isn't worth much, and all LP stores are not created equal.

What CCP needs to do is create mechanisms to promote a status quo per se, to encourage people to want to join a weaker side.
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#483 - 2012-05-03 17:50:37 UTC
Miss Yanumano wrote:
When the game crashes on Singularity, is any action required of me to make sure CCP gets the information? (I've had several anomalous crashes on SiSi while flying in space, instant CTD with a message that the game have stopped working)


For one off crashes our crash logger will be enough there so you need take no action. If you find a reproducable crash it is of paramount importance to let us know how you reproduced it.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Stalking Mantis
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#484 - 2012-05-03 18:01:43 UTC
OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.

In regards to the Faction War changes:

1-The changes to Sov Upgrades sound like a good start as I can see CCP wanting to ease us into it (the upgrade concept that is). That being said the first two mention

1-a-Reduction in costs of Clone facilities. I am not sure about the exact numbers but the amount of times a true faction warfare pilot gets podded is pretty low as opposed to nullsec with all the bubbles etc. Granted I have derped a few times the past two months to sebo thrashers and got podded but this is usually the exception not the general rule. In other words it is not that big of an upgrade and I seriously doubt much ppl would donate isk to upgrade this feature as the prevailing thought will be 'whoever gets podded deserves the penalty' among the FW community. So to sum it up I think it will be a rarely used if not never used feature.

1-b-The extra manufacturing slot. Hmmm what can I say in my opinion there is really never a shortage of manu slots in lowsec systems to begin with so adding an extra on to the 20 already available will not be something I would consider donating my LP for. Agreed there will be a few exceptions as a few pvp corps have manu back bones to produce expendable ships for their corp (t1 frigates dessies and t1 cruisers etc.) I don't see this as a REAL benefit. Perhaps a SERIOUS consideration of an extra research slot as that is something that is EXTREMELY precious and scarce would be a better option in my opinion.


In regards to the ppl screaming about being locked out of station I think they should just HTFU it is not like nullsec where you will be facing a Pandemic Legion Titan blob absolutely killing your hopes of ever docking or coming back to your space. Besides ppl should spread out their assets anyway in my case if I lose access to any one of my stations in lowsec no biggy I lost access to a few ships I never keep all my eggs in one basket. For capitol pilots I can see this being a concern but in the end it will only mean relocating capitals to less 'hot' systems as they are always movable with a few well placed cyno's anyway.

Amarr Liason Officer Extraordinare -->Check Out Amarrian Vengeance/Amarr FW History from 2011 to 2014 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=352629&find=unread

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#485 - 2012-05-03 18:05:50 UTC
Stalking Mantis wrote:
OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.


I certainly am! And thank you.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#486 - 2012-05-03 18:12:23 UTC
Maz3r Rakum wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Hrett wrote:
If CCP or anyone cares to see it, here is a long discussion by FW corps on the issue:

Discussion by FacWar corps


Good discussion, keep it coming. As CCP Soundwave stated we are actually locked in to continue working on FW after Inferno, so we will be monitoring the short term effects and have some long term plans that we didn't get time to do.



Keep up the good "work" on FW. Your work will kill FW.


Maz3r Rakum if u've got nothing constructive to say, or no explanation of your reasonings why u feel how u feel, then say nothing.
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#487 - 2012-05-03 18:19:01 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Stalking Mantis wrote:
OK Time for some serious feedback hope you are reading this Hans.


I certainly am! And thank you.



despite the Damars opinion which I respect .... Hans this changes are massive fail and u r proving u r not very independent CSM FW representative. Honestly proposed changes are massively promoting blobfests and number stronger parties (currently Minnies and Gals). Huge benefit of FW - small scale warfare in lowsec - got massive hit if these changes will become real as less blobing party will be forced out of lowsec.

ad Damar - I dont agree we will not be facing PL blobs .... I remember times when Caldari was dominating pipes, I rememeber times when Gals were rolling over us very very hard ... in case these rules will be up in these times there will be no more faction war.

ad CCP - u r changing it into sov nullsec ..... and many dont want it (we live in low because we dont want to be ****** up by blob terror in an empty wasteland) ... u wanna prove urself again like a company which does not care? Not everyone wants to live in ur time dilatated wet dreams.

Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#488 - 2012-05-03 18:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Hidden Snake
Damar Rocarion wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
And if not, than they deserve to lose their space. v0v


And there goes your neutrality. Welcome back Ankh, I quess....

You seem to think that being able to soak punishment and losses automatically means success. To quote immortal words of Private Frost, "What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language? "


yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#489 - 2012-05-03 18:40:10 UTC
umm i am stoked for the reduced clone thing... i just wish you moved faction warfare to pirate null sec so i could get cheep clones in null sec...

Please oh please ccp expand faction warfare to npc null sec... i will love you foreverz... promise...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#490 - 2012-05-03 18:43:09 UTC
Hidden Snake wrote:

yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes


What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#491 - 2012-05-03 18:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: ITTigerClawIK
EDIT

Never mind found out that you can just click on the ships tab to get the old icon list... my appologies ^_^
Silly Slot
State War Academy
Caldari State
#492 - 2012-05-03 19:07:24 UTC
Stalking Mantis wrote:

1-b-The extra manufacturing slot. Hmmm what can I say in my opinion there is really never a shortage of manu slots in lowsec systems to begin with so adding an extra on to the 20 already available will not be something I would consider donating my LP for. Agreed there will be a few exceptions as a few pvp corps have manu back bones to produce expendable ships for their corp (t1 frigates dessies and t1 cruisers etc.) I don't see this as a REAL benefit. Perhaps a SERIOUS consideration of an extra research slot as that is something that is EXTREMELY precious and scarce would be a better option in my opinion.
--------------


I'd say add manufacturing and copy slots
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#493 - 2012-05-03 19:19:07 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Hidden Snake wrote:

yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes


What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation?



considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).

what we need changes which are neutral to all sides .... reason is simple FW allways lived in cycles ... this change is just hitting the ballance or option to reballance to place where it will not revive. Also it promotes blobery and is not properly thinked through.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#494 - 2012-05-03 19:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Hidden Snake wrote:

considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).


Just so everyone's crystal clear, I'll post for you some of what I posted in the CCP internal thread. There's nothing NDA breaking about sharing my own opinions, and I think its important for you to understand where I've been coming from.

" I am dubious about mechanics that revolve around pilot numbers specifically, as they can always be gamed by adding alts into another militia. However, one side capturing most or all of a given territory is an extremely likely scenario (its already happened).

-

By providing some PvP-LP incentives for the losing militia, there becomes a reason to stick with your faction when the chips are down. This is extremely important to the existing community, because engaging in a long term static war against known enemies has been part of the lasting appeal. I’d hate to see Faction Warfare become a giant revolving door engaged in by pilots dipping in and out or switching sides just to make the most money. Any mechanism that helps the underdog stay in the fight and bounce back from behind is sorely needed."


Also:

"Paired with enough other incentives that reward "total victory" by one faction or another, you essentially give the losing faction no way to fight back using the ships they've paid for. Do we really want to force all faction warfare pilots to base outside of the faction warfare zones? "

Your assertions that I'm somehow gaming this for my own benefit are ridiculous, and this is the last I'll answer to those accusations. I've been fighting for an elastic system that is fair to the losing side from the beginning, regardless of whether you're happy with the results. All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting.

Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#495 - 2012-05-03 19:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Hidden Snake wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Hidden Snake wrote:

yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes


What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation?



considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).


Are you actually serious with this tinfoil RP nonsense? Wait, don't answer that... you probably didn't think for more than three seconds before you made your post insulting one of the CSM's hardest working members. Roll

If you are mad blame CCP and make constructive suggestions; don't try to lay off several months worth of development on an elected CSM rep that's been on the job barely one month and is still doing his best to pass along the FW community's concerns.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#496 - 2012-05-03 19:54:43 UTC
Hidden Snake wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Hidden Snake wrote:

yeah neutrality burned in a first day ....lucky I told my guys to make they own decission in votes


What do you consider a neutral approach to this situation?



considering changes which does not benefit current situation ballance of numbers .... as I said u working for ur side (which is morte numerous now).

what we need changes which are neutral to all sides .... reason is simple FW allways lived in cycles ... this change is just hitting the ballance or option to reballance to place where it will not revive. Also it promotes blobery and is not properly thinked through.




Hans may have simply forgotten what its like to be the underdog in this war. But I really don't think he is purposefully trying to make mechanics that help the minmatar and gallente. These changes might help them right now but I don't think he is deliberately trying to help his own faction.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#497 - 2012-05-03 20:10:47 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
All I can do is share community feedback, the rest of the decision making is in CCP's hands. I'm just with the large number of FW pilots that are willing to TRY the new system before declaring it a failure and quitting.

Saying "This is what we're getting regardless, lets try to have some fun with it and talk again when it actually fails" is not taking sides, its simply the most practical approach given the circumstances.



Sure lots of fw pilots are willing to try it before quitting. A lot more null sec pilots are pretty positive about it too. I'm sure you see all their positive comments about this too right?

That raises the question: what do you mean it might "fail." Fail for whom? Fail for null sec inclined players who like these sorts of mechanics? No those players will do fine. There will be big fleet fights with this sort of mechanic. Lots of people like big fleet fights and so it won't fail for them. Lots of people like the idea of putting in allot of effort and getting a big reward. They too will eat this up. This will be just like what they get and like in null sec.

The problem is those of us who don't want eve to be a second job and just want frequent quality small scale pvp will not do well with this no docking and long flip times. Eve will be a much less inviting game for us.

If you are in the first camp then keep cheering about these changes. If you are in the later camp then please keep pushing ccp in that direction. Even if you know they are going to force this down our throats. Even after they force it down our throats keep pushing for our style of play. Thats why we elected you.

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

Sutha Moliko
Giza'Msafara
#498 - 2012-05-03 21:18:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sutha Moliko
I thought the deny to dock was also applied in hign sec.
It is not.
A bit strange in a RP pow to be hunted in ennemy space (with a warning from above) and be able to dock in a station.

Ninja edit : you might say who cares about high-sec when you are in the FW ? "Hiding" ships in a high sec entrance could become the only way to avoid an extending front line and attack from behind.
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#499 - 2012-05-03 21:28:13 UTC
Sutha Moliko wrote:
I thought the deny to dock was also applied in hign sec.
It is not.
A bit strange in a RP pow to be hunted in ennemy space (with a warning from above) and be able to dock in a station.

Ninja edit : you might say who cares about high-sec when you are in the FW ? "Hiding" ships in a high sec entrance could become the only way to avoid an extending front line and attack from behind.



well i am considering Villore to be one of the safe systems :)
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
#500 - 2012-05-03 21:32:08 UTC
just some quick feedback.

missles/launchers
- From what I've seen so far the missile effects pretty good. I will say I'm not so hot on the missile explosions. It looks like just a bit of flame, not really an explosion. I've only used heavy missiles at this point.
- The launchers look awesome. M
- I have noticed a delay in the time from when hit the button to launch missiles to when I do actually launch. I haven't made a timed comparison but it does seem like it takes longer to kill things with this apparent delay.

Inventory management
- overall not bad. it will take some getting used to.
- the fact that your ship doesn't actually show up in your ships menu is odd. yes I know it's at the top, just seems weird.
- I do like the drag and drop in the single window. It will make moving stuff around really easy with not having to use multiple windows.
- Suggestion: there are times where multiple windows will be needed. I know you can open an inventory section by either using the shortcut key or right clicking it..... can you just make it so double clicking it will open up that section into a new window?
- Suggestion: I'm not sure if this is part of the plan or not but can please make it so that we can set up separate "folders" or "sections" in our inventory. So for example, right now I have to use containers to keep my items separate. The issue here is A) I can't interact with items in a container like I can in the items window. ie, repackage items. B) containers have limited space.

that's all I got for now.