These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM Minutes on Faction Warfare

Author
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#141 - 2012-01-20 03:58:38 UTC
Stalking Mantis wrote:
Bad Messenger wrote:


I recommend that plexing points could be voting points or something like that, so more you do for your militia more you can affect to leadership.


qft. Maybe adjust the plexing points to victory points and tweak the victory points you get for killing opposing militia pilots. Not sure if you get victory points for missions. Would hope not as someone abusing militia as a cash cow and contributing nothing to his cause should have no say either.

Bottom Line:

-No one on CSM caring to contact FW pilots for there opinion (so much for representation)
-No one on CSM from FW representing US.
-No ability for FW pilots to see eye to eye on anything let alone all agree to a candidate or two to toss in their hat to the CSM race and represent ALL FW pilots.

P.S. After trying out plexing. All those that think plexing is boring or 'PVE' etc. Your doing it wrong! plexing got me more fights/kills and losses than anything else i tried in eve ever.


Yes, plexing is best part fw has to offer, if enemy really tries to prevent you. But without fights it is boring and that is the situation where PERVS ended when they dominate too much plexes Ugh

Anyway if military leader is elected from funny guys who can talk nicely it will not change anything from current situation. Leader should be someone who has earned his position to make sure that he understand even bit of FW mechanics.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#142 - 2012-01-20 05:41:40 UTC
We could always spam the CSM's mailboxes. Big smile I've already begun...

Oh and BM is dead on the money here. Rather than politics deciding things let distinguishment on the battlefield be the deciding factor. We're all sick of politics and we all want to blow **** up. Can I get a fckin oath?
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#143 - 2012-01-20 06:36:46 UTC
Think about situation where Ankh will be selected as militia leader Lol
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#144 - 2012-01-20 07:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Super Chair wrote:
We could always spam the CSM's mailboxes. Big smile I've already begun...

Oh and BM is dead on the money here. Rather than politics deciding things let distinguishment on the battlefield be the deciding factor. We're all sick of politics and we all want to blow **** up. Can I get a fckin oath?


Amen!!


_________________________________________
Missy Lorelai for TLF Admiral!!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#145 - 2012-01-20 07:43:40 UTC
yo, why do you keep laying this on nullsec reps' feet when it was (according to the credits section) hashed out with two step who is a WH dude?

from talking to my csm, he was like, "i didn't say **** about FW; **** em"
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#146 - 2012-01-20 07:55:07 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
talking to my csm, he was like, "i didn't say **** about FW; **** em"


/facepalm

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#147 - 2012-01-20 08:09:00 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
yo, why do you keep laying this on nullsec reps' feet when it was (according to the credits section) hashed out with two step who is a WH dude?

from talking to my csm, he was like, "i didn't say **** about FW; **** em"


You do realize that those credits are referring to who wrote the draft on that particular subject for the summit report, not who was in attendance to each session, right? Otherwise you'd have like 1 CSM per meeting LolLolLol
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#148 - 2012-01-20 08:12:21 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
Mfume Apocal wrote:
yo, why do you keep laying this on nullsec reps' feet when it was (according to the credits section) hashed out with two step who is a WH dude?

from talking to my csm, he was like, "i didn't say **** about FW; **** em"


You do realize that those credits are referring to who wrote the draft on that particular subject for the summit report, not who was in attendance to each session, right? Otherwise you'd have like 1 CSM per meeting LolLolLol


Correct. That probably means that Two Step spoke up the least, as he was the poor schmuck who drew the short straw and got to type up all the minutes throughout the session until his fingers cramped up.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#149 - 2012-01-20 08:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rel'k Bloodlor
Mfume Apocal wrote:
yo, why do you keep laying this on nullsec reps' feet when it was (according to the credits section) hashed out with two step who is a WH dude?

from talking to my csm, he was like, "i didn't say **** about FW; **** em"



So he just watched the trian wreck and stayed in his car........I feel so much better about him being there or bothering to take his role serously. What was his name agean so I never vote for him?

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

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2012-01-20 08:41:29 UTC
Super Chair wrote:

You do realize that those credits are referring to who wrote the draft on that particular subject for the summit report, not who was in attendance to each session, right? Otherwise you'd have like 1 CSM per meeting LolLolLol


i thought it was whoever suggested/chaired it, my bad.

Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:
So he just watched the trian wreck and stayed in his car........I feel so much better about him being there or bothering to take his role serously. What was his name agean so I never vote for him?


if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#151 - 2012-01-20 11:46:42 UTC
Cearain wrote:

You haven't even identified what you want to see changed in fw other than balancing npcs. Do you think that is what will fix it? You may not realize it but ccp has done some balancing already. I hardly think that is much of an issue.

What we need is to identify what CCP should do and then vote for someone who is indicating they will encourage them to do that.


There are a number of things that would HELP fw (it doesn't need fixing imo, but that is my opinion). However, considering the ideas soundwave/csm were shitkicking around it is blatantly obvious that they don't even know how this part of the game/this community of fw'ers works.

There are now a number of distinct threadnaughts about various ways WE think fw could be improved and my point is that they haven't even been looked at. Debating the utopian fw has its place, but i think that everyone involved would appriciate a well thought out change from someone who was experienced in fw, regardless of whether they thought it was the best change or not.

Cearain wrote:

Your idea of just voting for someone who is "our guy" without even establishing what they should do is what the Null sec lemmings do. Sorry I'm not interested.


It is simply obvious that we need direct representation so that WHEN we have their ear (not often) they (soundwave) are actually hearing good advice.

The person i think makes the most sense to rally around is Hans who I think we can all agree has been doing a great job representing the community in the past few months. Of course he is not the only option for a candidate, but it is worth getting people thinking about it now, because we (as a fw forum community) need to start campaigning sooner than later.

I has all the eve inactivity

Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#152 - 2012-01-20 11:48:34 UTC
FW needs a boost.
Anything will be a step forward

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#153 - 2012-01-20 12:06:15 UTC
Silence iKillYouu wrote:
FW needs a boost.
Anything will be a step forward


Tho there is truth in that It's a dangerous mind set to have one bureaucracy is a foot. Its how small towns in the American mid west wound up with busted mono-rails that just went in circles around town.

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

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#154 - 2012-01-20 13:57:22 UTC
chatgris wrote:

This is the anti-blob mechanism of FW once CCP gives some reward for plexing, the distance. Personally, I like it, it gives a chance for people to spread out, for winning to be something other than who wins the fleet fight.

Can you honestly look at the other warzone map and think that is a game mechanic?

It is far more likely they wanted to make the two warzones different and unbalanced to avoid a "manufactured arena" feel to it, and I applaud that line of thinking. All I'm saying is the Cal-Gal warzone is far too vast and will likely be where these new FW mechanics get exploited by alliances if/when they bother to do so.

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#155 - 2012-01-20 14:33:00 UTC
Stalking Mantis wrote:
Bad Messenger wrote:


I recommend that plexing points could be voting points or something like that, so more you do for your militia more you can affect to leadership.

P.S. After trying out plexing. All those that think plexing is boring or 'PVE' etc. Your doing it wrong! plexing got me more fights/kills and losses than anything else i tried in eve ever.



Yes Victory points should be voting points. I agree. But unless they improve how you get vp I don't think these leaders should have much power at all.

Doing plexing wrong:

IMO plexing is/should be the core of fw and the best way to get good fights in all of eve. That is the only opinion I will give. I will not give any recomendations as to how to fix plexing but just try to give some facts:

Whether you are doing it right or wrong depends on what you are looking for. According to this poll
http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/:

60% of people use plexing sometimes but only to get fights.

15% think plexing is an important part of their game
and
25% never bother.

We can see that the vast majority in fw do not catagorize plexing as an important part of their game. Yet many want to make the consequences of this mechanic more important.

I bet if you asked this same question after fw came out you would get many more people saying yes of course occupancy plexxing is important. The whole point of fw is to gain occupancy for your faction. Well that view changed and then many never did plexes. And now we seem to have a resurgence of plexing "for the fights".

But using plexing "for the fights" is different than plexing in order to do plexes efficiently.

So how do i use plexes to get fights? 1) I go to a very busy wartarget area I fly for amarr so I go to vard - eszure. I find a system with allot of wts in local and ships on dscan and open a plex. When I open it though I usually don't actually run it! I move away from the rat spawns so they don't agro. Plus I don't want to actually run the plex. I just want fights so why would I want to close the plex? That is one way plexing can be used to get fights.

As far as how you do plexing in order to actually cap plexes efficiently. Well doing what ank did is still a very good tactic. People can say what they want about her (carebear, dirty rotten contract breacher etc.) but she was a very efficient plexer and nothing has significantly changed about plexing that would make the methods she described anything but excellent.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#156 - 2012-01-20 14:42:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Karl Planck wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Your idea of just voting for someone who is "our guy" without even establishing what they should do is what the Null sec lemmings do. Sorry I'm not interested.


It is simply obvious that we need direct representation so that WHEN we have their ear (not often) they (soundwave) are actually hearing good advice.

The person i think makes the most sense to rally around is Hans who I think we can all agree has been doing a great job representing the community in the past few months. Of course he is not the only option for a candidate, but it is worth getting people thinking about it now, because we (as a fw forum community) need to start campaigning sooner than later.



Hans is a good pick and anyway he seems to be the only one willing to do the job. I would endorse him except my endorsement might ruin his chances.

I say what i did, because you know, ank used to be the fw csm. Just because someone is running as a fw candidate doesn't mean their voice will utter good advise.


That said ank made allot of good proposals. She was ok for what the csm used to be - people who advocated changes offered by players in the assembly hall. Now the csm is more like players who whisper to ccp in a back room and are covered by nda.

That is why Atticus Bear is dead on to say these minutes give us really very little. The devil is in the details. And these minutes are very vague. What exactly are they proposing?? Who knows?

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

PlatinumMercSEAL
Center for Advanced Studies
#157 - 2012-01-20 17:33:56 UTC  |  Edited by: PlatinumMercSEAL
I like the idea. I think it would revamp everything in a good way. This might bring more people from high sec to militia. We have a lot of people dreaming of null security space, including myself. This set up would target that group and bring them into the militia. This would turn up the heat. I see more espionage and power hunger. I sure hope this gets in to place soon. I, being a owner of a militia corporation, along with other militia corporation owners, directors, CEOs, and Vice CEOs should like this. This will boost the corporations size and bring in more revenue as a corporation. What CEO would not like that is not out of their mind? Good ideas CCP. Please put them into actions.

Captain PlatiumMercSEAL, Deep-Space Wraiths (Independent Null Sec Mercenary Corporation)

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-01-20 17:59:23 UTC
PlatinumMercSEAL wrote:
I like the idea. I think it would revamp everything in a good way. This might bring more people from high sec to militia. We have a lot of people dreaming of null security space, including myself. This set up would target that group and bring them into the militia. This would turn up the heat. I see more espionage and power hunger. I sure hope this gets in to place soon. I, being a owner of a militia corporation, along with other militia corporation owners, directors, CEOs, and Vice CEOs should like this. This will boost the corporations size and bring in more revenue as a corporation. What CEO would not like that is not out of their mind? Good ideas CCP. Please put them into actions.


trolololol? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=PlatinumMercSEAL

Good for you about being optimistic, but you are not quite of the same community as the rest of us. GO to 0.0, tell us how it was, maybe you will love their game down there.

I has all the eve inactivity

Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#159 - 2012-01-20 19:32:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
From Meissa Anunthiels on the CSM minutes;

Quote:
To the forum posters who object to the notion of FW being a testbed for 0.0 sov mechanics, it’s the other way around. Meaningful occupancy mechanics need to be developed for Faction Warfare. And if they work correctly, the same principles should be extended to 0.0. To be clear, the devs (and I) really want Factional Warfare to be meaningful in its own right.


Quote:
Using faction warfare as a test-bed for nullsec sov? -> Once more, no, implementing FW occupancy correctly and extending that to 0.0. In this instance, FW mechanics are the important bit.


but then....

Quote:
Faction Warfare leaders could be elected, and pvp should play a larger part in FW ranks, as opposed to PvE plexing.


My best analysis is that he wants FW to be meaningful. And like the rest of the CSM, they may understand how FW mechanics needs to be fixed (all you need to do is read forums), but they certainly do not understand the motivation of why people join and stay in FW. There are many reasons and avoiding nullsec drama is one of them.

So in an attempt to fix FW, they give silly solutions like electing leaders which opens up Pandora's Box to being more like nullsec asshatery. What they (Nullsec CSM and CCP) consider meaningful is totally different than what FW pilots consider to be meaningful.

Until their meaning is aligned with our motivations, FW is going to become nullsec

Contrary to popular belief, destruction doesn't occur in one fell swoop. It starts with the slight misstep on a slippery slope. Welcome to that slope.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#160 - 2012-01-20 20:07:44 UTC
Deen Wispa wrote:
From Meissa Anunthiels on the CSM minutes;
My best analysis is that he wants FW to be meaningful. And like the rest of the CSM, they may understand how FW mechanics needs to be fixed (all you need to do is read forums), but they certainly do not understand the motivation of why people join and stay in FW. There are many reasons and avoiding nullsec drama is one of them.

If one of the main drivers for those who stay in FW is to avoid null sec drama, then drama seems to be winning. Nul sec drama affects the willing participating leaderships the most, and there can be big repercussions for those who live there. From what they have floated, I fail to see what kind of collateral damage militia regulars would face that would even come close to an industrial corp losing alliance sov.

As you stated, there are many reasons to be in FW and I don't see how providing something more meaningful to fight over will hurt the current motivations. You can always opt out of any kind of election or capture mechanic and keep on shooting war targets.

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.