These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

FW changes on test
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#41 - 2012-01-08 12:54:28 UTC
Londor Rogers wrote:
..

Depends how they implement it, bet they are just ticking the alliance box below the corp box as to who can join .. probably the reason why they are proposing the exact same entry requirements.

Since you can be in militia and have your co-pilots red, there should be nothing preventing an alliance joining and setting everyone red with instructions to members to move militia affiliation above standings on OV when farming their missions.
Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#42 - 2012-01-08 13:36:22 UTC
Any change will be good.
FW is boring ATM all amarr went to highsec

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#43 - 2012-01-08 14:19:05 UTC
Silence iKillYouu wrote:
Any change will be good.
FW is boring ATM all amarr went to highsec


Thanks I needed a laugh.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Salicaz
Verrimus Caelum
#44 - 2012-01-08 14:20:17 UTC
Silence iKillYouu wrote:
Any change will be good.
FW is boring ATM all amarr went to highsec


Where have you been lately? Shocked
Londor Rogers
Public Menace
#45 - 2012-01-08 15:22:38 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Londor Rogers wrote:
..

Depends how they implement it, bet they are just ticking the alliance box below the corp box as to who can join .. probably the reason why they are proposing the exact same entry requirements.

Since you can be in militia and have your co-pilots red, there should be nothing preventing an alliance joining and setting everyone red with instructions to members to move militia affiliation above standings on OV when farming their missions.



Warning: Shooting a FW pilot part of another player corporation not located in your own faction does not make you lose faction or FW militia standings (though it remains an act of aggression and will activate the Global Criminal Flag, resulting in CONCORD in high-security space, sentry guns shooting and security status loss). However, shooting a FW pilot part of a NPC corporation Militia will result in standing losses.

So basicly anyone in the NPC militia corp would be somewhat protected by the standing loss a member of there own militia would take. If standings were to drop to low the null alliance would not be able to maintain in the militia. So if a SOV holding alliance actually wanted to be a part of FW they would likely have to refrain from killing members of the NPC militia corporation in their SOV space. Like I said before since anyone can join any militias NPC corp easily this would create a pretty big security problem for a SOV holder IMO.
Maz3r Rakum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2012-01-09 07:35:58 UTC
Silence iKillYouu wrote:
Any change will be good.
FW is boring ATM all amarr went to highsec


lol


Seriously CCP is this how you intend to fix FW?
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#47 - 2012-01-09 22:22:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
I read this analysis on FW and the implied blobfest that would occur when CCP makes these changes;

Quote:
First, in order for an alliance to join FW, every corporation in the alliance will need a .5 faction standing. For those who don't understand standings mechanics, your corp Faction standing is based off the average Faction standing of each individual. I think this restriction alone will greatly reduce who will even join at all because:


1. The chances that a huge alliance having those average standings in every corporation right now are pretty slim.
2. The chances that a huge alliance would want to join badly enough to move to empire and mission to achieve these standings is pretty slim.
3. The chances that any huge alliance will kick out a valued corporation due to not having standings for faction war are pretty slim.



He makes a very thoughtful analysis on why it won't turn into a nullsec blobfest.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#48 - 2012-01-10 00:08:32 UTC
I have been chewing the cud on this for a few days. My thoughts;

It is clear that the disparate corps in the various militias will form into 2 or more alliances. They won't form into 1 alliance - egoes will get in the way of that - but there will be a couple in each bloc and this will provide higher-cost wardec protection for the member corps. This will in turn reduce griefing of the militia blocs by smaller merc outfits, etc. The corolary is that with alliances formed, the resources will be there to hire the more expensive merc blocs to grief the foe - end result will be a shift into more pro mercs griefing larger alliances, resulting in better pew pew in the rear echelon.

Secondly, there is nothing stopping militia alliances seizing sov themselves in nullsec once they form an alliance. It might be a while before this happens, but I can see it happening eventually.

Right now the POCOs are providing the biggest boost to FW, because the militias and lowsec entities are fighting over them. Clearly the changes CCP needs to make to FW is to begin treating the stupid bunker crap more like a sov blockade mechanic, so you can at least generate a killmail and stick it to the foe. The more the new militia alliances have to invest ISK and e-peen in their RP squabbling, the more they will take it seriously.

Finally, the likelihood of the major nullsec alliances getting into FW is about nil. As pointed out, the corp standing needs to be good for it to join an alliance, and for the alliance to join FW. On average, any large collection of toons will have atrocious standings towards any given faction.

You will also, no doubt, see people join alts to their enemy alliances and corps and trash their faction standings to drag that corp and alliance to low standings and get them ejected from militia.

Bring it on, I say. Despite what some bloggers are saying, FW has been stagnating for a long time.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2012-01-10 01:01:14 UTC
Last two posts above me make a lot of sense. Perhaps they did this for the FW corps, and the 0.0 Alliances will have little, if any involvement.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2012-01-10 02:50:41 UTC
I have been thinking on this some and agree that it is likely there will be a number of alliances formed, both on geographical and political grounds.
Some thoughts and ideas on this
1) Alliance Torny entry from militia's = +1 :)
2) Alliance channel. Will it be used for intel or will custom channels continue to be used? Time will tell
3) There is every chance that the corps within an alliance will be more focused and work together more then they curretnly do.
4) There is a risk from the null blob alliances, but the possible loss of access to some trade hubs, being able to be ganked in high sec by opposing militias and the requirements to keep standings should over time weed out the alliances that are serious and the ones that are doing it for the lulz...
5) It will be intereting to see how the PECO mechanics are modified (if at all) to support allinces...
6) Will the senior FW corps form a senior alliance and then create training/pet alliance for training noobs? Over time. the noobs will be able to graduate into the senior corps.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#51 - 2012-01-11 19:02:11 UTC
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#52 - 2012-01-13 13:00:11 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.


Most of the people in FW I know are they because they dont give two ***** about Sov, Players in FW are not their just as a stop gap before they enter Null. Most have tried null been so bored they almost left eve but gave Low Sec FW a chance and found it fun.

This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-01-13 13:29:19 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.


Most of the people in FW I know are they because they dont give two ***** about Sov, Players in FW are not their just as a stop gap before they enter Null. Most have tried null been so bored they almost left eve but gave Low Sec FW a chance and found it fun.

This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.


not empty quotin

I has all the eve inactivity
Damar Rocarion
Nasranite Watch
#54 - 2012-01-13 13:49:32 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.[/i]


not empty quotin[/quote]

Maybe militia alliance will drop SBU's to some entry systems for **** and giggles to bait fights. That's what Draketrain did in Province to rattle the cages of "fight club". But I dont see much other reason. On the other hand, entity like CVA could really now claim Providence in name of the Empire if they joined Amarr militia. Of course some Caldari RP alliance like Fourth District could do the same for Pure Blind.
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#55 - 2012-01-13 19:44:19 UTC
This

lulsec is typically for noobs and girly men
bubbles and no gate guns are Eve on easy mode


I would say about 90% of the best PvPer's in the game reside and fight in low sec (in and out of FW)

I'm just a terrible nano ***, but a lot of folks I fly with are pros

sYnc Vir wrote:

Most of the people in FW I know are they because they dont give two ***** about Sov, Players in FW are not their just as a stop gap before they enter Null. Most have tried null been so bored they almost left eve but gave Low Sec FW a chance and found it fun.

This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.

nom nom
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#56 - 2012-01-13 20:45:21 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.
They are doing it to provide us more targets.
Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-01-13 22:19:45 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.
They are doing it to provide us more targets.


That seems appropraite and crap.

0.0 is boring as **** and all ccp can do about FW and 0.0 is mash them together so everyones annoyed, great NEX store mark 2.0 here we come

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2012-01-13 22:36:41 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.


Most of the people in FW I know are they because they dont give two ***** about Sov, Players in FW are not their just as a stop gap before they enter Null. Most have tried null been so bored they almost left eve but gave Low Sec FW a chance and found it fun.

This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.


Bingo.
Though it would be fun like damar says for FW alliances to drop SBUs in systems connected to the FW regions - should bring some GF.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Lord Azeroth
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-01-15 17:38:29 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
i'm assuming one of the big reasons CCP is doing this is to grow new alliance powerblocks capable of giving SOV holding alliances some big problems.


Most of the people in FW I know are they because they dont give two ***** about Sov, Players in FW are not their just as a stop gap before they enter Null. Most have tried null been so bored they almost left eve but gave Low Sec FW a chance and found it fun.

This idea that low sec is a try then move to null is kinda insulting.


This ^^

After spending a few years in Null, POS Bashing, Drake Blobbing, Bubble Camping, FW with all it's limitations rekindled the fire to PvP and play EvE.

Even if FW formed some alliance to challenge SOV holders I doubt there would be much interest in going after 0.0 space.
Xuko Nuki
Heralds of Darkness
White Sky.
#60 - 2012-01-15 20:31:50 UTC
What exactly was this intended to fix? Lack of supers? I don't...