These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#161 - 2012-01-20 20:51:43 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.....


Ok ignore the trolls. If you want to go to null sec go to null sec. This is a game where you are immortal. There is no reason to delay pursuing your dreams.

Thinking that fw is a good stepping stone to null sec is very wrong.

The large alliances are much more new player friendly than fw. They will tell you how to fit your ships and exactly what to do. You do not need to be good at pvp to do the large fleet blob warfare they do. Just know the alphabet so you can follow along as the primaries are called. Even if you don't know the alphabet you can click on "name" in your overview and just start shooting the top one.

On the other hand if you pvp in fw your skills or lack of them will be much more important.

If on the other hand you dream of learning and getting good at small scale pvp, then join fw. But don't join faction war thinking you are in anyway getting closer to your null sec dreams.

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

Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#162 - 2012-01-20 21:19:49 UTC
Dirk Smacker wrote:
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.



Another 0.0 characteristics that FW would like to avoid:

Since there's relatively safe access to isk generating activities, a sizable chunk of the large alliances tend to stagnate in their PvP activities, except when they/leadership decides to expand or to protect their assets. One of the major consequences is that PvP tends to be less persistent (as a whole), and is concentrated in less frequent large fleet battles. Even though FW has relatively PvP light missions, these missions are still higher risk than the typical isk generating activities found in 0.0. I believe the core players in FW wants to keep PvP as the centerpiece with high incidences of skirmish/small fleet activity, with few (if any) large scale fleet battles with 500+ players.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#163 - 2012-01-20 22:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:

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.


Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow...

Mfume Apocal wrote:


if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.


What in the world does THAT mean??

FW interests and nullsec interests are in NO WAY incompatible. If you've ever read any of my other posts, you would know that I have been an outspoken supporter of giving development attention to the nullsec soverignty system, which is as broken as the FW system, and has the same stagnating influence on activity that leads to boredom. Some of us just want to make the game a better game - and that includes groups that live in all three areas of space. They are not mutually exclusive.

The whole political process and debate has been plagued for years with this kind of mindset - that my people are inherently opposed to your people, and that we need one of my guys to have a seat so that he can meet our interests (whichever side you're on).

That is a horrible way to look at the CSM. The bottom line is, most of us that want FW changed for the better want nullsec changed for the better as well. Same with highsec. Just because you vote for someone who lives in one area of space does not mean they can't advocate positive change in another area of space.

The FW crowd simply doesnt want to be merged with nullsec gameplay - that does not mean that a FW candidate would interject and impose their way of life onto nullsec, threatening nullsec interests. The relationship can be cooperative - so that each area of space is developed according to those who like to live there - instead of a superiority match where the winner dictates the gameplay for all of EvE.

What is ******** about that?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#164 - 2012-01-21 00:01:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:

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.


Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow...



I said that tongue in cheek, because the gang of 4 were giving me a hard time lately the thread. There isn't any real animosity between the handful of us who have been arguing about fw for years.

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

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#165 - 2012-01-21 00:05:59 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:

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.


Let's just say hypothetically that I was to run for office. Why would your endorsement ruin anything? I don't follow...



I said that tongue in cheek, because the gang of 4 were giving me a hard time lately the thread. There isn't any real animosity between the handful of us who have been arguing about fw for years.


Hahaha OK, just checking.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#166 - 2012-01-21 00:33:07 UTC
Galdornae for CSM

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#167 - 2012-01-21 00:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
Mfume Apocal wrote:



if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.


I don't understand this sort of zero-sum mentality that people like Mitanni and other people take. Eg; In order for nullsec to win, FW,hisec, or WH has to lose. That's a mindset based on scarcity and not abundance. There's more than enough in the pie for all of us. And no, I don't think I'm being naive.

Any simpleton or a r etard (or lawyer in this case) can sit there and take an either/or approach. Eg; "Yeah, screw you. You're either with us (nullsec) or against us."

But someone who is educated and with good critical thinking skills can avoid the either/or mindset and choose to see the entire spectrum of colors as opposed to just seeing black and white. Eg, "FW, like all other parts of space is part of a healthy eco system that makes New Eden a vibrant place to live. Let's find a way to work together"


PS. I know this is an MMO full of degenerates and kids running amok, but I'd like to think there are enlightened men who are capable of good critical thinking skills Roll

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

Beta Miner
COBRA Logistics
#168 - 2012-01-21 03:01:16 UTC
The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.

Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.

Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done.

AFK Cloaking? An afk cloaker has never ganked me. In fact a cloaker at his keybourd has never ganked me either.

sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#169 - 2012-01-21 03:20:10 UTC
Beta Miner wrote:
The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.

Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.

Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done.


No one in FW wants Empire + pve,


wait sry.. NO one ACTIVE wants that.

99% want fun. Null sec is not that, if it was we would be thier.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#170 - 2012-01-21 03:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Beta Miner wrote:
The problem the FW is not the fact that FW is broken .. but the fact that everybody wants something different.

Some people want a 'Nullsec Lite' version of PVP while others want an 'Empire+' version of PVE.

Until we get a bit more unity, all that CCP can do is exactly what they are doing now, putting FW in the ice box until the more important jobs get done.


This deserves some major clarification, and fast. First of all, CCP is NOT putting Faction Warfare in the icebox - read the latest Dev Blog. They are most certainly moving forward with Faction Warfare improvements. The problem is that they are not listening to the community in the process, and the vision proposed by the CSM at the recent summit did NOT take into consideration the community's concerns that were shared with them.

There is in no way a split between those who want "nullsec lite" and those who want "Empire PVE +".

The truth is, NEITHER of those describe what FW pilots really want. The miltia pilots have stuck around for three years not because we enjoy missions (they suck, and are easily farmed) or nullsec alliance infrastructure headaches (a large amount of FW are nullsec refugees that came here for the politics-free PvP). We just want to get out and fight everyday. Anything that stands in the way of that we want minimized, whether its crappily designed PvE, or forced political organization.

Faction Warfare was a system designed around encouraging small-scale, frequent, casual PvP. The PvE that it includes was designed to bait PvP encounters, NOT to be all that engaging itself. The problems lie in how well these PvE structures actually encourage the PvP they were designed. They just don't do a very good job at what they were intended to do.

The way to fix Faction Warfare is to stick to its orginal intent - providing frequent, hardcore, abundant, and concentrated PvP so pilots can log in, find fights, and have fun without having to grind missions, or wait for a CTA or the lifting of a non-aggression pact.

The community has consistently sent this message, loud and clear, the only thing you see debated on is exactly how to tweak those mechanics. But saying that the militias are split between those who want nullsec, or those who want Empire PvE, doesnt even begin to describe why were here and why we've engaged in a "dead" feature year after year after year.



EDIT: Thanks, sYnc Vir!! I should have just saved everyone the hassle of my usual walls 'o text, because you nailed it.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2012-01-21 05:06:59 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Mfume Apocal wrote:


if you (fw guy) voted for anyone i (nullsec guy) voted for, you are r.etarded, lets put it that way.


What in the world does THAT mean??


It means that I voted for candidates who were pretty much 100% nullsec focused.
rightuos
The Tempted Strain
#172 - 2012-01-21 06:11:12 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:

It means that I voted for candidates who were pretty much 100% nullsec focused.


so you voted with a bias

why are you in a FW thread?
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2012-01-21 06:17:29 UTC
rightuos wrote:
so you voted with a bias

why are you in a FW thread?


someone linked it for tear extraction
rightuos
The Tempted Strain
#174 - 2012-01-21 06:23:57 UTC
want some visene?
Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#175 - 2012-01-21 07:37:33 UTC
Silence iKillYouu wrote:
Galdornae for CSM

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

I Legionnaire
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2012-01-21 08:06:04 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[quote=Beta Miner]
The way to fix Faction Warfare is to stick to its orginal intent - providing frequent, hardcore, abundant, and concentrated PvP so pilots can log in, find fights, and have fun without having to grind missions, or wait for a CTA or the lifting of a non-aggression pact.


QFT

I'm disconcerted with the CSM's view of FW as a guinea pig for 0.0 sov warfare rather than as a separate entity entirely. The only change I'd really like to see is disallowing militia members from docking in the opposing militia's stations.
Ambo
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#177 - 2012-01-21 10:08:10 UTC
Please do not make FW 'nullsec lite'.
Politics/drama is not what I'm after and I certainly don't want to be a tested for mechanics before they get introduced to 0.0.

Also, as other posters have said, the viability of most ship types within FW is one of the key draws for many. Please don't break that.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#178 - 2012-01-21 12:43:39 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
rightuos wrote:
so you voted with a bias

why are you in a FW thread?


someone linked it for tear extraction


How empty your life must be

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#179 - 2012-01-21 14:16:03 UTC
sYnc Vir wrote:

No one in FW wants Empire + pve,


wait sry.. NO one ACTIVE wants that.

99% want fun. Null sec is not that, if it was we would be thier.

I remember having many, many conversations in militia back when Incursions came out about a CCP quote saying how they want to see where they could apply the new things they developed for it and FW seemed like an obvious choice. The overwhelming majority thought a scaled down version for FW would be a great addition.

So yeah, maybe those who are inactive need something better to fight over than a permanent wardec to stay active.

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

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#180 - 2012-01-21 14:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Smacker
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The community has consistently sent this message, loud and clear, the only thing you see debated on is exactly how to tweak those mechanics. But saying that the militias are split between those who want nullsec, or those who want Empire PvE, doesnt even begin to describe why were here and why we've engaged in a "dead" feature year after year after year.

Just curious here, what could they add or change that wouldn't resemble a nul sec or PvE feature?

The only thing I could think of would be battlefield complexes that appear in the warzone every so often. Only warp-in is to a friendly npc fleet that requests a specific ship size. Have objectives to fight over (like a series of starbases) that give out vp as a reward and cap the amount you can get per day to prevent exploit farming.

I

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