These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: Factional Warfare

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#121 - 2012-03-25 17:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
zero2espect wrote:
Some Stuff


Believe it or not, I actually flew with you a handful of times in Amarr FW as a fleet member alongside you few years back, it wasn't under this toon and we were pretty amicable with each other on that character, although weren't directly involved.

I actually don't have an issue with you personally.

You just really haven't proposed any actual ideas that are tangible, insist that the current ideas are a waste of time without any actual proof or debate, and insist that this will ruin FW, when it's what has been asked for from many people in 3 of the 4 militias I have played in over the years.

Most of those people left. So, why cater to those that are already in FW? You will and can get what you want, you can make the same choices you already make today, perhaps with a little more of the "consequence" if you fail. Oh noes.


Ran a PVP fleet through the war zone yesterday, and all it was was 2 Minmatar Militia fleets running around, no valuable Amarr fleets to face off with them, except one random dude who got pwned by a Minmatar fleet, and a big yawn fest. In the end, Iron Oxide. tried to engage us with 3 faction navy battleships, an hot-dropped Archon on a gate and some small crap. That was pretty damn amusing. Bored much?

Anyways, was a pleasure flying with you when I flew with you.

Where I am.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#122 - 2012-03-25 17:34:52 UTC
I am all for improving FW mechanics since current doesn't really reward people for actual fighting but doing pve.

however people should realize if they want big scale fleets and stuff they should take next logical step and move into doing actual 0.0 alliance warfare.

FW should not be replacement for missing small alliance possibilities in 0.0. instead holding large regions and moving over long distances should be made more difficult so it's easier for smaller alliances and corps to take part in 0.0 warfare.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#123 - 2012-03-25 17:43:22 UTC
Since CCP are deadset on making FW into some mini-null horror ...

How about a FW bridge/slingshot (singular, as in one per militia)
*Note: This is in anticipation of supers being neutered in regards to LS .. no more Titan hotdrops

Can be attached to bunker in a system of the militias choosing in which their side has sovereignty (should be simple to have a polling thing), or use acquired VP (missions don't count) to decide who calls it
Functions like a Titan bridge in that it allows jumps to any available (fleeted, in range etc.) cyno but without opening an actual bridge (hence calling it bridge/slingshot).
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#124 - 2012-03-25 18:19:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Super Chair
Shepard Book wrote:
I think the no docking in enemy stations and cyno jammers or even jump bridges are great ideas. People want more to fight over and this will give them that. It would be still quite easy to have most your assets in a safe place and these ideas should bring the big groups into the picture and give more targets. I can not help but think the ranking system should be a part of the cyno / jump bridge part.

I am interested to see how rank perks will be brought into the game. I have never done FW but have spent years in 0.0. The proposed changes have me seriously looking at FW as a reason I may want to come back to the game and bring ships out of mothballs.

BTW, FW really needs overhaul in the wiki. Objectives, Missions, how to gain standings are all kinda fuzzy there to me. Let alone the corps involved on each side for recruitment. Warfare and tactics section in forums seems like a joke to support this as well.


Jump bridges are a bad idea.

First off, moving around in lowsec is pretty easy. There are no bubbles.

Secondly, half the fun is roaming around trying to sneak through areas that are heavily populated by the enemy. If i want to to move to certain parts of the warzone, I have to risk going through a fortified enemy system. Some corps have positioned themselves in systems in such a way that enemy fleets have to either go through said systems or use a highsec route to avoid detection. Most fights happen on gates. Adding jump bridges to lowsec is completely detrimental to the sake of getting fights.

Thirdly, in terms of logistics you are still in empire space. Jump bridges are completely unnecessary to do logistics in lowsec as you'd still have to either a) get a normal freighter into lowsec to use said jumpbridge (to what, use the jump bridge to go another 1 jump? Most corps live within 2-5 jumps of highsec) or b) you use a jump freighter that can pretty much jump to anywhere within the region.

Edit: Also, not just for the sake of FW, but for the sake of all of lowsec: jump bridges should not be added to lowsec. Want to kill lowsec piracy in one go? Add jump bridges to lowsec.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#125 - 2012-03-25 18:21:43 UTC
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:
I am all for improving FW mechanics since current doesn't really reward people for actual fighting but doing pve.

however people should realize if they want big scale fleets and stuff they should take next logical step and move into doing actual 0.0 alliance warfare.

FW should not be replacement for missing small alliance possibilities in 0.0. instead holding large regions and moving over long distances should be made more difficult so it's easier for smaller alliances and corps to take part in 0.0 warfare.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. If you want a 500 vs 500 fight then move to null. FW is about small gang (and small fleet) PvP.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#126 - 2012-03-25 21:23:57 UTC
If all it takes is you leaving FW for a day to move your stuff out of a conquered station, then what's the big deal? A kind of "surrender". You can also contract your loot to a third party hauler or perhaps get an alt to move the stuff out. Not a big deal, tbh.

The only real consequence would be losing access to a FW mission agent.
ceyriot
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#127 - 2012-03-25 23:12:24 UTC
So I think instead of having LP's upgrade systems, I think that VP's should be the currency to purchase upgrades. Combining this with actual upgrades and consequences of system sovereignty should have the effect of getting more people to participate in plexing.

LP's still need a bit of work though I think. Too many people are in FW right now to carebear and do nothing but missions.

Not Flyinghotpocket's alt. At all.

Faction Warfare is like Fight Club. But with spaceships.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#128 - 2012-03-26 00:37:10 UTC
ceyriot wrote:
So I think instead of having LP's upgrade systems, I think that VP's should be the currency to purchase upgrades. Combining this with actual upgrades and consequences of system sovereignty should have the effect of getting more people to participate in plexing.


Absolutely agreed. If Zero2pect's fears about it being "too late" to fully remove infrastructure upgrades from the new system (because of invested art or UI man hours) than I'm going to lobby hard for it being an automatic system run by victory points, much like the natural effects from the sliding scale of an incursion bar. I do NOT think any of us want to sacrifice income from ships, only to make more isks. It's a silly waste of time and effort when we can just make this all about fighting over territory and have the consequences being more natural.

And yeah, everyone's said it, total station lockout is really really bad. Just want to re-emphasize I've heard you on that one, its what I've been saying the whole campaign. I would accept it being restricted to TLF or 24th stations ONLY, but I favor simply using station guns and station service lockouts as an alternative to removing docking / undocking rights.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#129 - 2012-03-26 00:42:56 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
If all it takes is you leaving FW for a day to move your stuff out of a conquered station, then what's the big deal? A kind of "surrender". You can also contract your loot to a third party hauler or perhaps get an alt to move the stuff out. Not a big deal, tbh.

The only real consequence would be losing access to a FW mission agent.


Losing mission agent access is totally fine, thats the kind of thing that SHOULD be involved here.

But having to leave FW for a day is totally stupid. It's immersion breaking and many of us don't want long in / out corp histories. We take pride in long term consistency.

Also, hassling with alts is not a big deal for us veterans, but I agree with Bloodpetal in as much that we cannot simply think about ourselves here.

My big concern is not just for the vets, its for new players. When I first started FW, I spent a whole day fitting 12 rifters and flying them to Auga. I had no hauler or knowledge about how to haul safely in low sec, I just wanted to get started in PvP without cross training too much. I would have raged if I had woke up to have all that work go to waste, and I do NOT want young pilots to face that kind of frustration. So yes, X, I do think it is a big deal.

It also just makes no sense to have a blanket no dock rule over the whole system. 24th may not allow TLF to dock, that makes sense, but Quafe stations locking militia pilots out does not.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#130 - 2012-03-26 00:45:17 UTC
Damar Rocarion wrote:


Frankly, i'm sick and tired of this bulls..t argument. Where were demands of respect and courtesy when people responding to this very thread were sending me death threats and accusing me of pedophilia?


If this happens, mail me immediately. I will look into it. You need to realize you are an older pilot than me, and stop blaming me for not reacting during a time I wasn't playing the game. I'm trying to help here, but I can't help you if you don't communicate with me.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-03-26 00:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Julius Foederatus
If you all are really worried about losing access to your stuff, the simple solution is to just make system capture take longer than currently. That way you have plenty of warning. And if you're gone for more than a week? Well you can't expect everything to stay the same if you take an extended absence. It's about time CCP stop holding everyone's hand and took out all these lame mechanics that allow players to hide behind them and grief others,.

The only bad part about docking rights is that it doesn't apply to low faction standing pilots. It needs to work something like this: if your standings are too low with a FW npc corp or their faction, you can't dock in a FW system that that faction owns. So if you shoot the owning militia too often, you lose faction standings and there are going to be consequences. People might actually have to worry about logistics when they're running pvp fleets now, and have to consider how far from their supply lines they go.

Other than that, all the changes sound good to me, especially the cyno jammers. It really is ridiculous for null sec blobs to come in and gank us half way across the galaxy from their base of operations, especially from an RP standpoint (lolrp).

Adapt or die, this is what EVE is supposed to be about.
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#132 - 2012-03-26 01:45:52 UTC
I have a few issues with the station lock out system.

1st, it should take at least 24 hours to POSSIBLY do this. You should not be locked out during a time zone you are unable to log in for. The stakes of the issue should match the effort required to get there.

Currently, it takes one time zone to take a system.

2nd, if these will be truly 'war zone' stations, then neutrals shouldn't be able to dock in them at all. Preventing a faction, but allowing neutrals is extremely problematic as it essentially 'punishes' people for being in militia. You are taking something away that they would normally have if they weren't in militia, and FW already has enough deterrents for gaining new interest.

If you go the route of locking out stations, then docking in these stations should be the benefit ONLY of the sov holding party.



3rdly, this locking out should only apply to militia related stations. CCP seemed to imply that it would include all stations in that system including stations belonging to parties such as "The Scope."


Overall, I think that locking people out of stations is going to cause have some ripple-effect problems, that people just don't seem to take into account.

1. People will move out of these systems. People aren't going to live in a station where access to their stuff could be taken away by the time they get up the next day.

2. If it includes all stations in system, people will move out of the warzone, and 'commute' to pvp. This will essentially nerf the small-gang pvp that you currently see by parties who live and freely move about these systems on the day to day basis.

3. With the new Crime Watch changes, many militia pilots (the ones who are in it only to prevent GCC from killing each other) will simply leave militia and continue shooting each other. Especially if, as neutrals, they can dock anywhere they want. Not only will they shoot each other, they will shoot the militia pilots...who will then also leave when they become frustrated with the system....etc.




Any mechanic that's added to Faction War that encourages people to leave FW altogether, should throw some red flags...I would think.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#133 - 2012-03-26 02:15:02 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
It also just makes no sense to have a blanket no dock rule over the whole system. 24th may not allow TLF to dock, that makes sense, but Quafe stations locking militia pilots out does not.


I agree with you that it should be station service lockout, not docking lockout.

But I think it should be in all stations in a system. And it is easy to say that these stations in lowsec FW space have militias stationed in them when that system is in control.

Though I would be ok with a total lock out of everything but pods. So you would not be able to restock ships there but could use ones you had placed when you had control.

For the Station guns I think it would be cool for them in controlled systems to fire on the opposing faction but only from the militia stations.

This gives you multiple levels of effects and consequences, and just the station service lockout will help to create an emergent front line.

Also I do not think they need to add stations to have every system have a station, but if they every make outposts destructible it would be cool to have them in lowsec.
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#134 - 2012-03-26 02:17:17 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
If all it takes is you leaving FW for a day to move your stuff out of a conquered station, then what's the big deal? A kind of "surrender". You can also contract your loot to a third party hauler or perhaps get an alt to move the stuff out. Not a big deal, tbh.

The only real consequence would be losing access to a FW mission agent.




The problem is that, there would become a focus in FW for getting around the system, through use of alts, or leaving FW, etc, as you say.

Would you really prefer messing with alts all the time, moving crap around, rather then focusing on actually pvping and playing the game?

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42
Deen Wispa
Sheriff.
Caldari Tactical Operations Command
#135 - 2012-03-26 02:49:23 UTC
I really hope CCP listens to those currently in FW first, as they have paid their dues from years of neglect. Rather than listen to alot of outsiders who think XYZ feature sounds all romantic but will probably leave as soon as it gets rough.

The people, especially the vets, currently in FW are those who have the best understanding of the implications of some of these proposed changes and their opinions should carry alot of weight.

CCP- Please listen to the current stakeholders rather than just those sitting on the sidelines romanticizing about this stuff.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#136 - 2012-03-26 04:12:34 UTC
It is a hope shared by everyone involved, but I fear it is all for naught. If the presented plan was/looked so fleshed out as indicated by people from FF then they are going with FW = Null Lite.

Blobs, EHP grinds, massive inconveniences, removal of last official RP support and tons of meta-gaming.

As much as I enjoy shooting an insurgent from time to time ......
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#137 - 2012-03-26 05:14:10 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
If all it takes is you leaving FW for a day to move your stuff out of a conquered station, then what's the big deal? A kind of "surrender". You can also contract your loot to a third party hauler or perhaps get an alt to move the stuff out. Not a big deal, tbh.

The only real consequence would be losing access to a FW mission agent.


Losing mission agent access is totally fine, thats the kind of thing that SHOULD be involved here.

But having to leave FW for a day is totally stupid. It's immersion breaking and many of us don't want long in / out corp histories. We take pride in long term consistency.

Also, hassling with alts is not a big deal for us veterans, but I agree with Bloodpetal in as much that we cannot simply think about ourselves here.

My big concern is not just for the vets, its for new players. When I first started FW, I spent a whole day fitting 12 rifters and flying them to Auga. I had no hauler or knowledge about how to haul safely in low sec, I just wanted to get started in PvP without cross training too much. I would have raged if I had woke up to have all that work go to waste, and I do NOT want young pilots to face that kind of frustration. So yes, X, I do think it is a big deal.

It also just makes no sense to have a blanket no dock rule over the whole system. 24th may not allow TLF to dock, that makes sense, but Quafe stations locking militia pilots out does not.

I'll disagree a bit on this. "Surrendering" by leaving FW for a day is not immersion breaking, IMO. It's "surrender". Pilots ought to choose their stations carefully, and they ought to be able to pod into a station to grab a ship. They just can't dock there again (if my previous suggestions were implemented).

Also, I had assumed they are going to lock out only FW-related stations, not other stations. Afterall, the other stations have nothing to do with FW.

Anyways, just another perspective on the matter.



X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#138 - 2012-03-26 05:17:34 UTC
Susan Black wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
If all it takes is you leaving FW for a day to move your stuff out of a conquered station, then what's the big deal? A kind of "surrender". You can also contract your loot to a third party hauler or perhaps get an alt to move the stuff out. Not a big deal, tbh.

The only real consequence would be losing access to a FW mission agent.




The problem is that, there would become a focus in FW for getting around the system, through use of alts, or leaving FW, etc, as you say.

Would you really prefer messing with alts all the time, moving crap around, rather then focusing on actually pvping and playing the game?
Being able to dock in an enemy station is "immersion breaking" for me tbh. But yeah, I'd likely avoid the issue altogether and base out of a non-FW station.
Volturius Maximus-Fur
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#139 - 2012-03-26 05:19:14 UTC
I don't get it - I thought you guys wanted change, wanted reasons to fight, etc. Saying that this is going to promote blob warfare is a moot point because I already see FW blobs quite frequently. Sure it's not all I see, but it's there.

Station access should be restricted, and from an RP perspective (which a lot of people seem to argue) it makes complete sense for an "occupying force" to restrict access to local infrastructure, regardless of the so-called owning NPC corporation. Pretty sure US forces didn't willingly give the Iraqis access to the local Fast-Gas station to fuel up there vehicles. (Ridiculous example I know)

If you are concerned about the new players and logistics, perhaps consider what goes on with new -10s in pirate corps. Most if not all of the established pirate corps have there own logistics chains, doing regular runs to and from trade hubs, to keep there members supplied. Thinking less about yourselves (the vets) is probably good advice.

The details as to how system capture takes place, LP distribution all that stuff, I don't really have much to say on the subject. Seems fine to me, but what do I know. I will say this, it should take some time to give you a chance to either counter-attack or withdraw and establish the front lines somewhere else.
Damar Rocarion
Nasranite Watch
#140 - 2012-03-26 05:28:20 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
If this happens, mail me immediately. I will look into it. You need to realize you are an older pilot than me, and stop blaming me for not reacting during a time I wasn't playing the game. I'm trying to help here, but I can't help you if you don't communicate with me.


I was not blaming you about anything, except your lack of willingness to understand mechanics bug used by the gallente back when PERVS went to Metropolis (and same sh.t is still done by gallentes). I am merely saying you are demanding me to be courteous towards people who do the things mentioned n earlier posts.