These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Team Pink Zombie Kittens Presents.....

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-01-06 03:33:19 UTC
Show me a shiny carrot and I'll show you MANY new alliances/corps in FW. Make plexing a carrot that's worth a lot and you'll get alliance wide operations to get those iskies and deny the enemy those iskies.

Major plex = worth lots of LP but has to have a minimum of (X number) Faction Warfare pilots in the plex to take it? Alliances would be good for that. See what I did thar? Put alliances and plexing in the same subject!

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#62 - 2012-01-06 04:23:59 UTC
New Neocom is excellent, but I noticed a few things. Most are minor, I didn't spot anything game-breaking.

With the old Neocom panel, brackets and labels would not get hidden under it - they would treat the edge of the Neocom bar as the "hard edge" of the screen. This behavior has been lost and unless Autohide is activated it can be hard to see some brackets. (This is probably the biggest issue).

The default width of the new Neocom bar should be identical, pixel-wise, to the old one when it is in button-only mode. Currently it is a few pixels wider.

Ships and Items icons should either disappear or (preferably) dim/turn grey while in space, since they can't be used outside a station.

One "missing" button. The Militia button does not exist anywhere in the new menus (this one should also disappear or dim when in space if placed on the Neocom bar).

Group (folder) icons are a bit touchy to drop things into and I've found they can disappear altogether when dragged on the bar. Groups should also be able to be given a name and/or a custom icon (or select from a pre-defined icon list, or something) so all groups don't look identical.

Individual buttons should be able to be locked to the Neocom bar (to prevent accidental removal).

The time and date display shows the date in mm.dd format without an option for customization, players in the UK and Europe will likely want it in dd.mm format.

The best thing about the new Neocom is that it is customizable enough that I was able to quickly make a reasonable approximation of the old one. The hardest part was getting it to exactly match the pixel-width of the old one.

With all the extra customization available, the settings-export-to-XML-file (please see my sig) becomes even more important as there's more to set up for each new character.

Please support: export of settings in editable format

Your stuff goes here.
David Magnus
#63 - 2012-01-06 05:00:05 UTC
Seriphyn Inhonores wrote:
If an alliance holds sovereignty, can they still join FW?

Because if they can, that means you'll have massive, supercap-hotdropping alliances who play nullsec sov wars being able to come in and play FW at the same time. How is this balanced? Current corps to FW don't have access to supercaps and all this 300-man blob fighting. You're basically allowing monolithic entities like PL being able to have their foots in both camps, and you're also adding to the mission running endemic.

"Hm, nothing going on? Let's clonejump to empire and carebear up the missions with 0% risk to our ships"

Or "No new sov to take? let's go **** up some FW subcap fleet". They can sit on the periphery and do their nullsec thing, then intervene on a rainy day when they feel like it.


I doubt this will be a problem.
Sov holding alliances are made up of LOTS of corporations, that include a very very diverse set of pilots. I would put ISK down that there isn't a single large sov holding alliances with the standings to join any of the militias.

Really, this would only benefit alliances made specifically of militia corps in the first place.

The only exceptions to this are likely CVA and Ushra'Khan, but even then I bet it would take them a lot of standing grinding to join the militias.

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps

http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#64 - 2012-01-06 05:14:12 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Whats the point of any game?

Ultimately the only thing you can do in a game that will make someone want to stick around is make it fun, and even more fun than that person's other options.

But you can't make fw plexing more fun by just throwing isk/game advantages at the winning side. Because (unlike in null sec and player organized controlled alliances) people can always just switch to the winning team.

CCP needs to make fw such that many people find it more fun than other things in eve, without just throwing in game consequences at it. FW plexing needs to offer a method of play that is *different* than what other parts of the game offers.

For me I hope they make fw plexing offer frequent quality small scale pvp. That is something that is not offered by any other game mechanics.


Hahaha yes yes, I get it, we need to make plexing about PvP Blink I've been hearing you all along (the majority of your posts are elaborate versions of your signature), and I agree.

Dont misunderstand my comments to think that I don't care about that issue as well, I do. Plexing should be revamped not just by adding impacts to winning them, but the mechanics of seizing a plex itself could be much more fun than blowing up NPC's and orbiting a button.

The only reason I don't emphasize "plexes should be about PvP" more often is that CCP hasn't outright said "we're revamping plexes, here's what we're proposing..." We can't control what they decide to work on, we can only comment on the proposals they make, including pointing out they might be better off working on something else instead.

As long as they're throwing out stuff like "lets remove all highsec NPC's" and "lets just allow alliances into FW" as iterations for Faction Warfare, I'm going to make sure those suggestions are addressed first, before we get on to the plexing debate.

I'm right there with you on lets make FW all about smaller scale, intense PvP. That's been the scene's biggest draw all along - not the consequences of ownership. But the two go hand in hand - no carrots = no fights. More pilots in the militia without fixing the "carrot" issue simply means more militia pilots going "where's the action at?".

The carrot can just as easily be that the mechanics of seizing a plex is fun enough to be the reward in and of itself. But given that this thread is about Alliances in FW, I'm just trying to focus on that issue first rather than have another nuanced plex discussion, and emphasize that CCP should listen to the FW community who has been demanding just about everything else BUT alliance participation, including but not limited to "make plexes about PvP not PvE".


Hans the plexing mechanic is the core of fw. Everything else is window dressing.

Alliances in or out isn't a big deal if they get the plexing mechanic fixed. You can't bring a super cap in 90% of plexes. They could make fw so it could accomadate all the accounts in eve if they wanted to. They could add regions and pirate factions etc. But you are right that they really should first get the plex mechanics sorted. Once they get that worked out they could take the show on the road and get lots more subs.

We can't control what they work on but we can tell them what we want them to work on. Assuming we agree. When it comes to specific proposals on fw very few agree.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cerberine Saken
Eternal Ennui
#65 - 2012-01-06 05:26:26 UTC
I agree with many of the other posters here, who think that it's a little premature to let alliances into FW, and that there need to be some restrictions: the fear that large sovholding alliances will join the militia and proceed to hotdrop the opposing militia to hell out of sheer boredom seems very probable.

Something that I would like to see, although this doesn't seem to be proposed much, is allowing individuals to join the militia without having to either bring their whole corporation along, or join an existing FW corporation (NPC or otherwise). I would love to join the Caldari militia on my main, but I don't want to leave my existing (non-sov-holding) corporation. But that's just me; perhaps there are balance issues with this that I've overlooked?
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#66 - 2012-01-06 06:01:49 UTC
I doubt that any big alliance want to take free wardec upon them. If they want to blob militia they can do it as well without joining militia.

Also standing requirement for all corporations make it so hard to join, that it is not worth to see all that trouble.

There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#67 - 2012-01-06 07:51:50 UTC
Ladies, please stay on topic. Just because FW is mentioned doesn't mean we should immediately hijack and turn it into a clone of the umpteen other threads.

Could we have reps from a bunch of alliances check their sheets and report what the 4 standings are for them? Should give an indication of high/low the standings part of the equation should/could be set.
Cearain wrote:
Not always. I can't "choose" to respect faction war any more than I can "choose" to like having piranhas attack my *******. Ok plexing isn't quite that bad but the comparison did spring to mind....

Sometimes you scare me .. who the hell has "piranhas attacking my jewels" as a stray though .. hahahaha
Garr Earthbender wrote:
...Major plex = worth lots of LP but has to have a minimum of (X number) Faction Warfare pilots in the plex to take it? Alliances would be good for that. See what I did thar? Put alliances and plexing in the same subject!

You are of course intending to sort plexes first so that it is not merely done a speedy frig and a bunch of lay-abouts, right?
Bad Messenger wrote:
..There is no benefits to join militia, you can take missions with alts if that is reason why you want to join.

Which is, if you think about it, a pretty damn good incentive as they have been moaning about their precious sanctum spawn time and what not. Fill up available blue-sea systems with ratters and send remainder to make approx. same ISK (for a week until markets crash) doing FW missions.
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-01-06 10:25:16 UTC
This is such a bad order of priority.

How will you balance a game play that has been advertized as an introduction for new players into the world of PvP by allowing the wealthiest and experienced entities in EVE to exploit the same mechanics at their leisure?

"Luckily" FW mechanics are still so pointless that one can expect that alliances only will farm the heck out of the LP stores while shooting any idiot believing that their blue color actually mean something.

Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook 

Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#69 - 2012-01-06 10:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rodj Blake
CCP Konflikt wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Quote:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
Inevitable I guess.

Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?

(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))


All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.

A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.

Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.

Feel free to ask more.


I approve of this change although maybe the minimum standing could be higher.

This won't fix FW by itself however.

Dolce et decorum est pro Imperium mori
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-01-06 10:56:24 UTC
A little feedback on the new neocom.

The flashing objects are a little dim. It's hard to see, especially if you are anywhere near a bright nebula.

The eve menu button at the top needs something to distinguish it from a shortcut to the esc menu. Perhaps a triangle pointing to the right to indicate that it can be expanded?

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#71 - 2012-01-06 11:12:33 UTC
Adding alliances to FW is like kicking a car crash victim bleeding on the pavement.

Not cool Evil
Kaver Linkovir
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#72 - 2012-01-06 11:35:47 UTC
Alliances NOT being able to join Faction Warfare has made faction warfare the fun place for people looking for small engagements it is today. It also disallows those alliances that are made up of 20 odd people corps times five unable to partake unless they dump their waning alliance.

In short: it has been a statement of comitment to Faction Warfare above all other ties.

Allowing small, medium and huge alliances will crush any and all balancing that faction warfare has. It will tip the balance decicively into the Jita corner. There is no real incentive to let Jita go as your marketplace other then that you feel more attraction to either Gallente or Minmatar.

Hinging it on Sov holding is broken from the get go, since Sov holding isn't all that popular anyway and large entities that get kicked out of their Sov will just use it as a layover where they can kick smaller entities to get their morale back up.

EVE would be better served with a reworking of inter corp relationships seperate of the alliance mechanism allowing for pseudo alliances. Anyone remember treaties being talked about?

Also, dying in EVE is ending up in an alliance that is waning and has no stuff to do, a corporation that has little to no active members in your timezone or at all. Rewarding active memberbase to suit the number of members that hold the best player retention numbers for EVE would be infinately more usefull then tossing something at something and hoping it will stick.

Also, the idear of allowing alliances into Faction Warfare shows clearly that the people having these brainfarts DO NOT PLAY IN THE FACTION WARFARE SANDBOX...SHAME ON YOU!!!
Lee Whelan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-01-06 11:40:25 UTC
Just another isk faucet for 0.0 alliances and those that are participating in FW now get.. well nothing really. \o/ Sounds like allot of fun. Oh, we can rep GCC now without losing FACTION standing. I guess its something.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#74 - 2012-01-06 11:41:46 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Ladies, please stay on topic. Just because FW is mentioned doesn't mean we should immediately hijack and turn it into a clone of the umpteen other threads.

Could we have reps from a bunch of alliances check their sheets and report what the 4 standings are for them? Should give an indication of high/low the standings part of the equation should/could be set.
Cearain wrote:
Not always. I can't "choose" to respect faction war any more than I can "choose" to like having piranhas attack my *******. Ok plexing isn't quite that bad but the comparison did spring to mind....

Sometimes you scare me .. who the hell has "piranhas attacking my jewels" as a stray though .. hahahaha



Just think about the current fw plexxing mechanic.

As for switching topics to something that was addressed in umpteen other threads: Until ccp gives us some indication they understand what the issue is I think we need to keep redirecting them.

Adding alliances is not good but it really won't really change much. Ok now we might have 400 people in kourm instead of 40. So what? It wasn't like when RKK joined it was the end of the world. Taking away npcs from high sec? That has nothing to do with the prized egg either.

Should we just sit back and say "nope thats not it" without at least telling them if they are getting warm?

CCP did change the timing of when plexes spawn. And they seemed to get it. But now I'm not so sure. A dev blog giving some sort of road map would be good.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-01-06 11:41:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu
CCP Konflikt wrote:
Team Pink Zombie Kittens has been hard at work making new features for your entertainment pleasure.

These include:
* The New Neocom


I dislike the fact that you removed the ability to have a "wide" neocon with text next to each icon and a large character portrait up top.

Sure, you can widen the bar but it just scales up the icons. The >> option is missing. Could we get it back?

(it makes neocon look like this:

Character Sheet [icon]
People & Places [Icon]
EVE Mail [Icon]

...etc.)

I also find it inconsistent that you can partially customize the bar - remove some icons - but not all. Logically a setup like this should include EVERYTHING possible under the E-menu and then allow freely add/remove what other icons show in the bar (and which icons start from the top, which from the bottom - ships/items etc. that are there now). Right now "Chat" cannot be removed from the neocom (or dropped into a group).

Also groups cannot be renamed?

I also agree that the animation for opening E-menu or group, while shiny, is slow.

I would also prefer to optionally be able to open E-menu by just mouseovering it. Click to open it is... clumsy.

[Apologies for the interruption, we now return to our regularly scheduled Faction Warfare yes-no-you-too bashing, already in progress...]
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#76 - 2012-01-06 12:07:27 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.


Quick update to this:

Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.

That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#77 - 2012-01-06 12:13:01 UTC
Hmm, do people really expect large null alliances to grind the standings for every corp, join FW, and move into lowsec?

First, grinding standings. Do you think alliance leadership will say "everyone get 0.5 amarr standings", and then it just happens? Very few alliances really have that discipline. Most likely, leadership will be ignored or laughed at.

Second, why would they do it? What's their motivation? Dropping supers on every WT gang? They can do that already, it's not like super pilots need to keep their sec status up.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#78 - 2012-01-06 12:13:09 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.


Quick update to this:

Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.

That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.


Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess.

I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other.

but carry on...

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#79 - 2012-01-06 12:18:23 UTC
Ciar Meara wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.


Quick update to this:

Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.

That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.


Nice to hear although I am a bit sceptical about the whole alliance can do their thing also, outside cva I see alot of griefing power given to alliances but thats part of every opening of the sandbox I guess.

I would also (eventually) like to see more a concerted effort in creating a "frontline"(war) and "rear area" (strategic strikes) mixed in together with the meaningfully taken space where conflict is initiated by players and empires alike and can feed of each other.

but carry on...


Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into :)
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#80 - 2012-01-06 12:19:32 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.


Quick update to this:

Being a really close window (from December to January) we kind of had to pick our battles. The idea was to do whatever we could fit in, as a runway for more comprehensive changes. Our January package will be alliances into faction warfare, and defect fixes such as the silly standings bug.

That should be a good start, leading up to what we're looking into next, which is "why would I bother to take space?". We're dealing with the comment in your quote, but it's not possible for the January patch.

Even though they probably didn't announce it, CCP has also dealt with severe NPC balance in plexes by nerfing the hell out of the Caldari NPC Ewar (it doesn't even exist any more in many Caldari plexes). Well done guys, keep it up.