EVE General Discussion

P.S.
In my heart of hearts I feel the answere is plexs, they limit ship type and make a way to jump in to a fight with out having to be completely blind, thus cheep thrills. More plexs, more types of plexs, may be with more than one entrance is what i want. They don't even need rats. It's function would sole be for "terrain" to fight around. Like in table top gaming and laser tag it wouldn't need to be fancy to be fun.

Constant Revision

*fixed

as far as plexs go (hell any thing-ships-modules-missions-story) why give up what we have, why not more? I would be happy if in the "pipe' of the war zone every system was a maze of static and scan down sites with multiple entrances, multiple rooms, some with navy NPC's, some with pie NPC's, some with effects similar to worm holes, hell even crazier stuff like Tama and OMS both having a 19 room static plex with navy NPC's in 1 room pie NPC's in another room some room no MWD allowed one that allows no cloaking and a gate at the end to the other system that's all the way across the pipe.

Oh one thing quick and with no sarcasm, spite, or mischievous smile on my face.

Can we all agree to not discuss the removal of any thing from faction warfare unless it is so broken you could cut your self on it.
We already are using an expansion with vary shallow content, it's already barely more than black rise, a new NPC LP store, and a way to prove you were in a system/constellation for 30 min.

Agreed. This is why I love Hirana's idea of NPC's that are a bit tougher to chew on, but that scat out of there the minute players arrive. This is a potential middle-ground solution that would satisfy those like SuperChair (an experienced FC who very much likes to PvP yet still maintains there should be SOMETHING to do in a plex if no players rise to the bait) and yourself, who feels the best solution to fixing plex warfare is the removal of NPC's entirely, on the basis they interfere with PvP.

I hate to see pilots who all want the same thing in the end (more fights, more places, more often, less waiting) get bogged down too much in arguments over NPC's when there are viable solutions that may address concerns on both sides of the debate.

+1 for creative solution of the day, Hirana! I salute you for your originality.

o7

Its come up before and its better than the current situation where the rats just keep pounding you. But if you are passive tanked (most of my pvp ships are passive tanked) you will likely still have to warp out repair your tank and warp back in.

CCP has some options on this, and some options have been discussed in this thread and others.

Inject "drama". Uhuh and FW doesn't have enough drama already?

FW as a testbed for null sov - oh lovely I can see just how that's going to go.

Rather you than me Hans, last time I bother looking now but the very best of luck to you all.

I should have bet isk on the amount of time that would elapse before the first "Oh ****, we're frakked" post was thrown down.

I want to emphasize though, that we as a community should not be quick to decry this is as news of our imminent destruction.

A few things to remember:

1) These are just ideas, not concrete development plans. Its still liquid at this stage, and subject to influence and feedback. Much more so than, say, Alliances joining FW, which sounds more or less a done deal at this point.

2) The talks were conducted by a nullsec-driven CSM, who will be out on a couple months. The actual oversight of the summer expansion will be conducted by a new set of leaders, so there's most certainly room for a FW candidate to be elected so that they can be directly monitored to ensure that FW doesn't lose its unique identity.

3) Drama exists, but more of the chaotic, destructive kind. Having a well-respected leader on each side coordinating militia-wide activity could have a more unifying influence, assuming there's worthwhile goals to pursue in the first place.

4) Current abuse of the FW system economically stems from payouts coming at the individual level, inviting solo alt farmers to do the bulk of the work. This could mean that someone who wants to simply farm missions has little control over how much income he makes, those that reap the most rewards could be the ones actively working to protect and secure systems for their side. Obviously there must be ways for solo players to make money, but I think the idea of really boosting income at the militia-wide level is a good opportunity for players to be out PvP-ing if they want to make the most of their mission time.

5) Saying FW could be a testbed for sov mechanics in null could be an idea squashed immediately if an actual FW pilot sat on the council, and pointed out that the two are and should be fundamentally separate in structure and design.

All that to say, I hope no one reads one page of a document and makes up their mind to stay or leave the game as a result - its all in the theory stage at this point, so we have a lot of time still to speak up, share our thoughts, get involved with the council, and make the most of this.

These are the FIRST serious high-level discussions we've seen in YEARS regarding FW. It shouldn't be a surprise that there's bad ideas mixed in with the good, and it shouldnt be surprising that there's a bit of a nullsec influence given the council make-up. Its good to see CCP thinking big, and not just in the mindset of half-assed tweaks or small things designed to appease us. I'm relieved and thrilled to see they want to attack the core issues here, even if we may disagree on some things generated in the first pass at brainstorming.

Agreed, and its good that this was a CSM suggestion and not a CCP suggestion. I am far more wary of the ideas the developers propose, as those have far more potential for becoming reality. However, its hard to add ANY consequence to occupancy (besides just throwing more money at players) without it being argued in some way that it takes us closer to nullsec. I think its safe to say *most* FW pilots wish that there was a point to occupancy besides merely flipping the name of a system. Eve has ultimately always been developed in the trajectory of giving more freedom and power to players, I expect this to be the case with FW as well.

The other way to see this is that if the advice was taken, WE would see improvement and overhauls sooner than nullsec. Thats totally fine by me, we've waited for a long time now, longer than Dominion's been out. We deserve it first, our problems have been around longer than theirs!



Where did they say probes help with mission? I must have missed that. I just see them talking about being able to lessen probe effectiveness in general, they mentioned it as a boost to sniper fleet effectiveness, but didn't bring up missions that I saw.

This was not a CCP suggestion. It was a CSM suggestion. Lets not jump to hasty conclusions here.

It's very possible CCP couldn't use FW as a proper testbed, as they may have a very different idea in mind for a nullsec overhaul planned already.

All that comment was a reflection on is that the *CSM* sees FW as nullsec-lite. That is NOT necessarily how CCP sees us, nor should it be taken that way.