These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

FW : *Insert "I see what you did there" or "when you see it" meme*

Author
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#21 - 2011-12-02 21:32:42 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
However, CCP has said that a big FW revamp is on the way,



Do you have a source for this?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#22 - 2011-12-02 21:45:54 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Anyway, alliances in FW is a fun and welcome idea for me, but it needs to be done carefully. Very. Carefully.

Quoted for truth. Could be awesome, bordering on glorious, if done correctly and very, very carefully .. but CCP's hamfisted approach to problem solving of late scares the crap out of me (on FWs behalf naturally Big smile)
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#23 - 2011-12-02 22:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrus Blackshell
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
However, CCP has said that a big FW revamp is on the way,



Do you have a source for this?


Caught me with my pants down. I do not.

CCP cited "FW improvements" on the Crucible feature list (here) but have since removed it since it got pushed back for "testing". Then there's also this messge in this thread which I'm sure you are familiar with -- hinting at some sort of "little change" to shake things up coming. I really hope he isn't talking about the alliance thing.

But no, I cannot find any place to confirm that there are further changes on the way. Maybe I'm hallucinating and deluding myself, but in that case don't wake me up!

Edit: Holy crap, do YouTube links not give that silly warning anymore? ^^

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#24 - 2011-12-02 22:39:06 UTC
Shalee Lianne wrote:
I sincerely hope that it is just a story and not foreshadowing some horrible 'new feature' for Faction Warfare.

The way I see it, if alliances are allowed in, it's going to be a cluster f^&* .

Imagine...

You have one huge null sec alliance that gets bored, sends their pilots to FW for lols for a few weeks or however long it suits them. Why? Simply because they can....

I don't think they would ever allow to let sov holding alliances join FW. Ether you are fully dedicated to FW or not. Its no holiday trip for big alliances.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#25 - 2011-12-02 22:46:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lil Nippy wrote:
Any and all changes to FW, regardless of their technicalities, are pointless until there are legitimate objectives in the warzone (plexes as they are now do not count) and beneficial reasons for flipping system occupation.

Allowing in alliances is no different. There is no large well established alliance in this game who would step foot in FW as it stands right now anyways.


I wholeheartedly agree. Much like the "remove higsec NPC patrols" suggestion by Soundwave, the idea has its merits, but there is far more work to be done on the core system first.

i disagree here. Removing highsec navy without a proper replacement would be wrong. This would make all space equal (highsec and lowsec). Now we have our space and enemy space. There would be 0 advantage in being in friendly space it would only make the battlefield larger... and militia is to small for that.

I would go into the exact opposite direction and even refuse docking in enemy militias stations(or even in conquered systems!)... mainly because this makes sense + docking games are one of the most boring pvp styles.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#26 - 2011-12-02 23:00:45 UTC
Alliance forum yielded an interesting tidbit: you have to have standing requirements to join the militia. These would be incredibly difficult to achieve for alliances, and might actually be enough to filter out most "evil" ones.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Cloora
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
#27 - 2011-12-02 23:41:08 UTC
I find it funny that people are saying that allowing alliances in FW they will hot drop massive cap fleets on FW fleets.

THEY ALREADY CAN!

Do you think null sec alliances care about going GCC? They can go back home and rat and be back to 5.0 in no time.

http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com

Cloora
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
#28 - 2011-12-02 23:44:45 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Alliance forum yielded an interesting tidbit: you have to have standing requirements to join the militia. These would be incredibly difficult to achieve for alliances, and might actually be enough to filter out most "evil" ones.


Not only does my previous post prove null alliances don't care, but the above fact will make it too much of a PITA for alliances to care. The only ones that will join are CVA and UK etc. And then Star Fraction will ***** they can't freely shoot all of them. :-)

http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#29 - 2011-12-03 02:04:18 UTC
Lil Nippy wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lil Nippy wrote:
Any and all changes to FW, regardless of their technicalities, are pointless until there are legitimate objectives in the warzone (plexes as they are now do not count) and beneficial reasons for flipping system occupation.

Allowing in alliances is no different. There is no large well established alliance in this game who would step foot in FW as it stands right now anyways.


I wholeheartedly agree. Much like the "remove higsec NPC patrols" suggestion by Soundwave, the idea has its merits, but there is far more work to be done on the core system first.

I strongly oppose all efforts to arbitrarily increase participation levels or the size of the war-zone if there isn't work being done on the core mechanics, giving the players a reason to fight in the first place. This could be given consideration, but should only be done after plexing is given meaning and value. Otherwise all that is accomplished is tripling the number of players that are asking, "why are we doing this again??"


Exactly, well said.

In my humble opinion the solutions are pretty simple. Reward LP for capturing/defending plexes (nothing crazy, maybe just 50 LP per capture or something especially now that plexes spawn so often) and removing all available agents from occupied systems.

For example, if the Minmatar capture Huola the Amarr no longer have access to their mission agents in that system. This kills two birds with one stone, because now it does not only affect the actual FW PvPers, but the mission farmers as well.



These sorts of proposals come up often. The problem is everyone will just join the winning side. Moreover plexing as it is done now is not pvp.

The thing is if fw were something that was very rewarding large alliances would come in to farm it. But so long as there is little or just mainly indirect benefits large alliances will likely not bother.

They just need to make plexing fun, instead of an npc grind.

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

Shalee Lianne
Banana-Republic.
Northern Coalition.
#30 - 2011-12-03 12:26:22 UTC
Why do people bring up CVA? I don't get it. CVA has no interest in militia as far as I can tell, from the years I've been in militia I've never seen them do anything for us.

CVA is an rp entity I think, and their rp values would not allow them to work with 90% of militia as it is because we do go GCC.
http://amarrian.blogspot.com/  ~ Roleplay blog. http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#31 - 2011-12-03 20:19:40 UTC
Shalee Lianne wrote:
Why do people bring up CVA? I don't get it. CVA has no interest in militia as far as I can tell, from the years I've been in militia I've never seen them do anything for us.

CVA is an rp entity I think, and their rp values would not allow them to work with 90% of militia as it is because we do go GCC.


Ushra'Khan doesn't help the Minmatar militia either. Strictly, it is not the same fight, just similar goals with similar enemies. However, the reason I mentioned CVA is because they are the best alliance PvP entity that Amarr RP has got (for what that counts). And, from what I know of them, I can definitely see them pitch in to help defend Amarr if the Minmatar start winning.

I'm just trying to throw out ideas and picture possible futures.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Shalee Lianne
Banana-Republic.
Northern Coalition.
#32 - 2011-12-03 20:30:27 UTC
I have an alliance-noob question since all I've ever done is FW, I don't know how alliances work really.

What is the benefit of being in an alliance and in FW vs being just a single corp in FW?
http://amarrian.blogspot.com/  ~ Roleplay blog. http://sovereigntywars.wordpress.com/ ~ Faction War blog.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#33 - 2011-12-03 20:40:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
CVA were pretty active in the opening months of the war, but due to their anti-piracy penchant combined with the high number of flashing militia members, it was agreed (Amarr = Civilization in case you didn't know Smile) that they stay clear as much as possible.
They would probably embrace the chance to be officially included though, question before the court is HOW?

Standings could theoretically be used as a way to keep the unwanted out, but how would it need to be to allow U'K, CVA, EM et al. in?
Something tells me that alliances of a certain age will not be able to meet a criteria that is very stringent due to a mix of pilots from all over the place .. which will inevitably lead to farm alliances created to exploit that fact.
One way to do it would be for CCP to sit down with the RP alliances that might have an interest in it and then artificially boost the needed numbers (and tank the opposite of course [:D]) .. they did just that when Eve was still an infant and they shuffled NPCs around in null-sec at least I remember a story of original BoB getting a Blood boost when the heathen was moved to Delve.

Still against allowing sovereignty holders in though, it just adds to their portfolio with no downside as they will always have the option to run "home" whenever they chose .. an option that is not available to everyone else in the militia's.
What I mean is: There needs to be a certain amount of commitment.
Shalee Lianne wrote:
I have an alliance-noob question since all I've ever done is FW, I don't know how alliances work really.

What is the benefit of being in an alliance and in FW vs being just a single corp in FW?

One word: Organization.
The rampant use/abuse of spies for instance could be eliminated almost overnight if alliances were allowed to fight in the militia's .. you'd need to infiltrate entities that have lived in with paranoia since forever.
Logistics, the bigger the pool the cheaper the replacements, more blood all-round.

At least that is the main benefit I see. Been a chore and a half to reach consensus in the corp based militias from time to time, would lover to have access to the level above where stuff like target systems could be doled out in a steady stream.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#34 - 2011-12-03 21:33:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrus Blackshell
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Still against allowing sovereignty holders in though, it just adds to their portfolio with no downside as they will always have the option to run "home" whenever they chose .. an option that is not available to everyone else in the militia's.
What I mean is: There needs to be a certain amount of commitment.


But there is. Being absent from your home systems to fight out in lowsec can cause a bunch of nasty things to happen. Movement of assets takes a long time, and if there is commitment to go fight in lowsec then they will likely lose the null space they own.

I agree, though, commitment is an important part of it. I don't know if not having access to half of high-sec is a good enough tradeoff for many nullsec alliances, since some tend to be very self-reliant. For the others it would make resupplying a pain in the arse.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Shalee Lianne wrote:
I have an alliance-noob question since all I've ever done is FW, I don't know how alliances work really.

What is the benefit of being in an alliance and in FW vs being just a single corp in FW?

One word: Organization.
The rampant use/abuse of spies for instance could be eliminated almost overnight if alliances were allowed to fight in the militia's .. you'd need to infiltrate entities that have lived in with paranoia since forever.
Logistics, the bigger the pool the cheaper the replacements, more blood all-round.

At least that is the main benefit I see. Been a chore and a half to reach consensus in the corp based militias from time to time, would lover to have access to the level above where stuff like target systems could be doled out in a steady stream.


Don't kid yourself, alliances are just as spy-ridden as FW corps. However, we are aware of this and adapt. For example, in an Intel channel you do not say "I am trying to get a Hulk to system X through system Y, is the route clear?", you say "any reds between X and Y?". Local chat is never used for useful talk, and other such things. It also comes down to your recruitment policies, and the care the recruiters take. I have turned away applicants who, for example, were talking about their experiences in an alliance that they were never actually in (according to their employment record), or said they enjoy flying battlecruisers all the time when their killboard records clearly showed they fly mostly recons. While these are certainly not proof of spy-dom, it indicated some sort of broken alibi, and that's not a good sign.

Recruiting advice aside, another thing that alliances (especially nullsec ones) have over lowsec/FW/hisec alliances/corps is some sort of respect for authority. When your alliance leadership can decide to suddenly kick you out and have all your stuff trapped in the station forever, you learn to listen. To not die in a fire in a fleet, you have to shut up and listen to the FC's orders. Plus, in 0.0 you cannot survive by yourself, you need others. That breeds better cooperation and other nice things.

Also politics explosions, but that's what popcorn is for.

I've tried out the plain TLF, and a couple of militia corps, but I just like being in U'K much more. Personal taste, I guess.

Oh wait, I'm not doing forums right. *ahem* NO, SMALL CORPS SUCK NULSEC ALLICES ARE TEH BEST AND ENDGAME TO EVE !1IF YOU DONT AGRE AND PLAY THE WAY I DO WOW IS TAHT WAY LOLOL >===========>

Edited for spelling. An example is a demonstration with the aim of informing others of how a task should be performed. An exmaple is a tree that had too much syrup taken out of it.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Previous page12