These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First Impression of Faction Warfare -- post inferno patch

First post
Author
Princess Nexxala
Zero Syndicate
#201 - 2012-05-31 14:24:58 UTC
Strange I have always found killing 5 t1 dessies in a t1 dessie to be far more satisfying then omgwtfjesusblobbing a cynabal or even a carrier. I guess Im just weird Lol

Lock out wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:


Also need to check quality of kills, if those 220/day were all Cynas/BCs/Whatnot and the 1100 are stabbed frigates




Inb4 someone jumps in to tell us every fight is special and killing t1 frigates is just as much fun as killing cynabals Big smile

nom nom

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#202 - 2012-05-31 14:29:05 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
I've been involved in a few t2/t3 kills, not to mention to odd SFI and Assault Frigs, not to mention various regular BC/cruisers, so pretty sure we aren't seeing JUST t1 stabbed frigs..

It was as with all things on the internet, exaggeration for effect Smile
X Gallentius wrote:
Anyways, 4-5x increase in kills is a bit too much to ignore. ...

True enough .. but how about ratios? Is it "attackers" trying to plex in systems with no possibility of docking, defenders being blobbed or somewhere in the middle?
Numbers without details can be and often are deceiving, in this case they might well mean that permanent lock-out (see the FW Iteration Soon™ thread in F&I for alternatives that are vastly superior to CCPs implementation) resulted in a FW spasms followed by death.
LooknSee wrote:
...

Awesome, another person to add to my "Hide Posts" list.
LooknSee
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2012-05-31 14:32:34 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Awesome, another person to add to my "Hide Posts" list.


What'd I ever do to you? :(
Jones Bones
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#204 - 2012-05-31 16:19:35 UTC
Blah blah blah. Every night me or Almity or Dai take a fleet out and we get kills. We also take losses. OMGZ it's almost like we're PVPing like hero samurai warriors eliteness!

There's a couple Amarr FW posters in here that need to have a bitter orgy so they can have their bitter spawn who can be our bitter-Christ that brings balance to the Force.
LooknSee
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2012-05-31 16:21:57 UTC
Jones Bones wrote:
Blah blah blah. Every night me or Almity or Dai take a fleet out and we get kills. We also take losses. OMGZ it's almost like we're PVPing like hero samurai warriors eliteness!

There's a couple Amarr FW posters in here that need to have a bitter orgy so they can have their bitter spawn who can be our bitter-Christ that brings balance to the Force.



Your lies reflect poorly upon the Empress and the glorious Empire that was founded in the time before time.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#206 - 2012-05-31 17:01:08 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:
Anyways, 4-5x increase in kills is a bit too much to ignore. ...

True enough .. but how about ratios? Is it "attackers" trying to plex in systems with no possibility of docking, defenders being blobbed or somewhere in the middle?
Numbers without details can be and often are deceiving, in this case they might well mean that permanent lock-out (see the FW Iteration Soon™ thread in F&I for alternatives that are vastly superior to CCPs implementation) resulted in a FW spasms followed by death.
You could, perhaps, undock and find out for yourself if the numbers are reflective of increased pew.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#207 - 2012-05-31 17:38:01 UTC
Duke Dantez wrote:
Muad 'dib wrote:
stuff complaining about station lock out.


Station lock out is absolutely critical to maintain the current state of constant pvp that is going on in FW. Right now Lamaa is averaging around 70% contested and I would assume that it will take a great effort for us in the Minmitar militia to hold onto it.
...


You have no basis to make that claim. There were lots of changes made that make faction war better with this expansion. To claim all the great fights are because of station lock outs is illogicial.

In fact there is good reason to think, and I do think, station lock outs have decreased the pvp we could have had if they just did the stuff we wanted like economic incentives, lp for plexing and lp for pvp. I think there would be allot more pvp if they just dropped the station lock out.

CCP said they were going to evaluate the station lock out. I have asked hans what criteria they are going to use to evaluate whether the station lock out is good or bad. I don't really see how they can do that effectively.

If they are just going to say well pvp increased after we made 15 changes therefore every single change must have been good and none of them could be bad, that is pretty stupid. Yet that is the logic of many of the posts here.


We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.

We also have good reason to think kamela had an increase in fighting due to station lockouts. However, this fighting was also caused by several other factors like the flip times drastically changing combined with the increased economic consequences! I think there could have been just as much fighting but it would have been more spread out over more systems had they not implemented the lockout.

I know I wasn't able to do to really participate that night because I had allot of ships and drug boosters that I needed to move. If I didn't have to spend that time moving them I would have been fighting somewhere to try to take systems. How many others had to do the same? There is no way to sort out these confounding variables regarding the fighting that happened the last few days before the patch.

I don't think I was alone as far as people who had to use those last few days before the flip times changed to move items instead of fighting.

I anticipate lamaa will have allot of fighting. But there is no reason to think that all the fighting that is going to happen there is due to station lock outs as opposed to the enormous economic incentives, and other good changes that ccp made. As for my ability to fight in lama I know I am hamstung since I had to move all the ships I used to have in huola and arzad out. The station lockouts only decrease my ability to participate in these fights.

Again how is ccp going to seperate out the increased pvp that are due to the good changes and determine if the specific station lock out change was good or bad? I asked Hans to ask this in the csm summit. I hope he will because then we can see if this station lockout idea is being evaluated in any sort of rational way.





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

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#208 - 2012-05-31 17:49:31 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:
Anyways, 4-5x increase in kills is a bit too much to ignore. ...

True enough .. but how about ratios? Is it "attackers" trying to plex in systems with no possibility of docking, defenders being blobbed or somewhere in the middle?
Numbers without details can be and often are deceiving, in this case they might well mean that permanent lock-out (see the FW Iteration Soon™ thread in F&I for alternatives that are vastly superior to CCPs implementation) resulted in a FW spasms followed by death.


I can give my personal experience:

Pre-inferno, the vast majority of my kills came from pirating. Caldari basically did not exist in my timezone. It go so bad that I moved off to Dudreda to fight eve uni for a while.

Now, I have nights with lots of kills, and *none of them* are due to pirating (I think my last pirate kill was a thorax that was helping a caldari gang in a plex in Eha). Most of those kills occur in plexes, since I can go to an upgraded caldari system with lots of caldari docked, and they give a damn that I'm in a plex (either because I'm taking their LP, or because they don't want to lose the system, or maybe this patch has enough people excited about plexing that there's just more people around), so they usually come out and fight. Or they'll be in a plex trying to get LP, and if the oods look good, they'll often stay and fight.

As for ratios, I'd say it's 50-50 offensive defensive plexes. Last few plex fights I can remember were:

a) 3-5 dessies (depending on who reshipped) vs 8 caldari dessies in Kedama
b) 2 dessies vs caldari: 2x merlin, griffin and thrasher
c) 3 destroyers and a caracal navy issue vs 3 battlecruisers, cruiser, kestrel

There's also been a few bigger fleet fights against caldari...
a) Weekend fight, a 12 man caldari cruiser gang with t1 logi and bb's in a medium plex, against a larger kitchen sink t1
25 cruiser gallente force (EDIT: Numbers from Bolster, I don't remember them personally but do remember a significant Gal numbers advantage)
b) Just last night, 23 destroyers running around nenna vs about 15 destroyers on our side, no plex though.

That's some recent fighting I can think of not going back further than Monday IIRC. This patch has brought a ton of people out of the woodwork into plexing and pvp, and it's fantastic.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#209 - 2012-05-31 18:00:15 UTC
Cearain wrote:

We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.
Ignorance is bliss. Raa has no stations, and there's a high sec station next door to Raa that could have been used.

Bottom line: Amarr don't have the personnel right now to spend defending a non-contiguous system (not in the Kamela/Sahtogas pipe) like Raa.
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#210 - 2012-05-31 18:06:27 UTC
chatgris wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

X Gallentius wrote:
Anyways, 4-5x increase in kills is a bit too much to ignore. ...

True enough .. but how about ratios? Is it "attackers" trying to plex in systems with no possibility of docking, defenders being blobbed or somewhere in the middle?
Numbers without details can be and often are deceiving, in this case they might well mean that permanent lock-out (see the FW Iteration Soon™ thread in F&I for alternatives that are vastly superior to CCPs implementation) resulted in a FW spasms followed by death.


I can give my personal experience:

Pre-inferno, the vast majority of my kills came from pirating. Caldari basically did not exist in my timezone. It go so bad that I moved off to Dudreda to fight eve uni for a while.

Now, I have nights with lots of kills, and *none of them* are due to pirating (I think my last pirate kill was a thorax that was helping a caldari gang in a plex in Eha). Most of those kills occur in plexes, since I can go to an upgraded caldari system with lots of caldari docked, and they give a damn that I'm in a plex (either because I'm taking their LP, or because they don't want to lose the system, or maybe this patch has enough people excited about plexing that there's just more people around), so they usually come out and fight. Or they'll be in a plex trying to get LP, and if the oods look good, they'll often stay and fight.

As for ratios, I'd say it's 50-50 offensive defensive plexes. Last few plex fights I can remember were:

a) 3-5 dessies (depending on who reshipped) vs 8 caldari dessies in Kedama
b) 2 dessies vs caldari: 2x merlin, griffin and thrasher
c) 3 destroyers and a caracal navy issue vs 3 battlecruisers, cruiser, kestrel

There's also been a few bigger fleet fights against caldari...
a) Weekend fight, about a 15 man caldari cruiser gang with t1 logi and bb's in a medium plex, against a larger kitchen sink t1
cruiser gallente force (think about 20)
b) Just last night, 23 destroyers running around nenna vs about 15 destroyers on our side, no plex though.

That's some recent fighting I can think of not going back further than Monday IIRC. This patch has brought a ton of people out of the woodwork into plexing and pvp, and it's fantastic.



Try 12 caldari to 25 gallente chatgris.....that isnt "a bit larger" thats 2x...just saying

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation

Jones Bones
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#211 - 2012-05-31 18:13:08 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.
Ignorance is bliss. Raa has no stations, and there's a high sec station next door to Raa that could have been used.

Bottom line: Amarr don't have the personnel right now to spend defending a non-contiguous system (not in the Kamela/Sahtogas pipe) like Raa.


Raa fell because Minnies timed it right (later USTZ) in which they have a significant advantage with Late Night Alliance. As teamwork improves between the Amarr militia I think you will see them able to hold strategic systems while taking some systems during EUTZ. At this time we simply do not have the pilots in late USTZ to match Late Night.

My one concern with the FW changes continues to be the LP multiplier for the losing side. I understand the benefits to the victor, but punishing the loser with a 4x multiplier is crippling. Right now it makes more sense for Amarr FW pilots to create Minnie FW alts (with new, improved 0.0 standings) to grind their missions for much higher isk/lp rewards.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#212 - 2012-05-31 18:13:13 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.
Ignorance is bliss. Raa has no stations, and there's a high sec station next door to Raa that could have been used.



I imagine you are in bliss right now. You continue to remain ignorrant of my posts explaining why basing out of a high sec system is not going to be a very good idea for an important part of our miltia. So other than a high sec station to base out of, where would be the nearest place to base? I suppose you will ignore that question and remain blissful.

X Gallentius wrote:

Bottom line: Amarr don't have the personnel right now to spend defending a non-contiguous system (not in the Kamela/Sahtogas pipe) like Raa.


The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.



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

BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#213 - 2012-05-31 18:18:33 UTC
Cearain wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.
Ignorance is bliss. Raa has no stations, and there's a high sec station next door to Raa that could have been used.



I imagine you are in bliss right now. You continue to remain ignorrant of my posts explaining why basing out of a high sec system is not going to be a very good idea for an important part of our miltia. So other than a high sec station to base out of, where would be the nearest place to base? I suppose you will ignore that question and remain blissful.

X Gallentius wrote:

Bottom line: Amarr don't have the personnel right now to spend defending a non-contiguous system (not in the Kamela/Sahtogas pipe) like Raa.


The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.






you're still complaining! Good grief man its done deal with it.

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation

Jones Bones
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#214 - 2012-05-31 18:19:00 UTC
Cearain wrote:
[quote=X Gallentius]
The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.


I was FCing our fleet that night and this simply is not true. There could have been 20 available stations in Raa and the surrounding systems. We did not have enough pilots online to combat their BC/Logi fleet. This is a perfect example of something Amarr FW needs to work on as a group, making sure systems are not closing to being vulnerable come late USTZ.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#215 - 2012-05-31 18:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Cearain wrote:

The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.
There is an Amarr system next door to Raa with a station. Thanks for proving my point.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#216 - 2012-05-31 18:28:10 UTC
Jones Bones wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

We have good reason to think raa fell without a fight due to station lockouts.
Ignorance is bliss. Raa has no stations, and there's a high sec station next door to Raa that could have been used.

Bottom line: Amarr don't have the personnel right now to spend defending a non-contiguous system (not in the Kamela/Sahtogas pipe) like Raa.


Raa fell because Minnies timed it right (later USTZ) in which they have a significant advantage with Late Night Alliance. As teamwork improves between the Amarr militia I think you will see them able to hold strategic systems while taking some systems during EUTZ. At this time we simply do not have the pilots in late USTZ to match Late Night.


I disagree.

1) It takes over 40 hours of straight plexing to flip a system. If any defensive plexing happens it takes longer. So all time zones could contribute.

2)Its pretty much impossible to hold and plex a system when you can't dock with in a several jumps of it. Once you get into the plexing game you will see how helpful it is to have all the different sized ships right close by.


I don't know whether you would have joined me but if we would have been able to stock up some plexing ships close to raa I would have been prodding our corp to do that. But given that you and others in our corp would not have been able to base anywhere close to there (combined with the fact that our corp only occassionally does the whole plexing thing) I really don't see the point.

If there was no lock out rule then we would have still had a large base in arzad. I am certain ILAW would have put up some sort of efforts to hold raa. Hell it may have been because of ILAW (when we were based out of Arzad) that amarr captured Raa to begin with.

Other corps could have put ships in arzad or the systems around raa too. Because even if minmatar held raa we would still be able to use those ships to continue the occupancy war and not just have to spend another night moving them out.

Jones Bones wrote:

My one concern with the FW changes continues to be the LP multiplier for the losing side. I understand the benefits to the victor, but punishing the loser with a 4x multiplier is crippling. Right now it makes more sense for Amarr FW pilots to create Minnie FW alts (with new, improved 0.0 standings) to grind their missions for much higher isk/lp rewards.


I agree that the punishment to the losing side is over the top. And yes its clearly much better to join the winning side from an economic standpoint.

But the station lockouts is also effecting peoples abilities to have pvp ships ready to put up a fight when they need them. I really don't mind ccp punishing the losing side but don't punish them in a way that makes it more difficult to keep fighting. Station lockouts does that directly. That is why I am so against them.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#217 - 2012-05-31 18:30:21 UTC
Jones Bones wrote:
Cearain wrote:
[quote=X Gallentius]
The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.


I was FCing our fleet that night and this simply is not true. There could have been 20 available stations in Raa and the surrounding systems. We did not have enough pilots online to combat their BC/Logi fleet. This is a perfect example of something Amarr FW needs to work on as a group, making sure systems are not closing to being vulnerable come late USTZ.



I was in a fleet with almity that night. But anyway a system does not flip in one night!

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

Jones Bones
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#218 - 2012-05-31 18:32:19 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Jones Bones wrote:
Cearain wrote:
[quote=X Gallentius]
The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.


I was FCing our fleet that night and this simply is not true. There could have been 20 available stations in Raa and the surrounding systems. We did not have enough pilots online to combat their BC/Logi fleet. This is a perfect example of something Amarr FW needs to work on as a group, making sure systems are not closing to being vulnerable come late USTZ.



I was in a fleet with almity that night. But anyway a system does not flip in one night!


Funny you say that; how much defensive plexing did we do in Raa? I know I did 0. Yet I see plenty of defensive plexers in Lamaa, Sis, Vard, etc. Sometimes war is boredom :P
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#219 - 2012-05-31 18:33:21 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.
There is an Amarr system next door to Raa with a station. Thanks for proving my point.



What system are you refering to? Perhaps you should read the part of my post you cut out.

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

Jones Bones
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#220 - 2012-05-31 18:38:05 UTC
Cearain wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Cearain wrote:

The only reason being "contiguous" is important is because of the station lockouts. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Amarr can't fight for raa and other non contiguous systems primarilly because of the station lockouts.
There is an Amarr system next door to Raa with a station. Thanks for proving my point.



What system are you refering to? Perhaps you should read the part of my post you cut out.


Raa is right next door to Amarr high sec bro.