These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Team Pink Zombie Kittens Presents.....

First post
Author
Mystical Might
This Game Is Terrible
Warlords of the Deep
#21 - 2012-01-05 17:44:09 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:

I would suggest you change the standing requirement dramatically. I would say all corps in a FW alliance must have in the neighborhood of 3.0 to 5.0 standing or higher with their faction. This might keep it to alliances being formed between existing FW corps and existing RP alliances, both of which already have good standing to their respective factions. 0.5 will allow every alliance in the game to join a faction, because why not?

Also, you need to add the cannot hold sov requirement as well.


1.0+ maybe, but not too high.
Most of the militia corps don't actually have that high a standing.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#22 - 2012-01-05 18:07:28 UTC
Most militia corps do not have access to null in general .. different cakes .. it is a choice, simple as that.

Here's a wrench:
If alliance XY joins militia YY, then all members of militia YY become blue to everyone XY is blue with overriding all player settings.
Blue-on-Blue violence, best violence!
Betcha alliances would think twice before sitting down to milk our cow!

Seriously though, ask around the office as to why one of the first and most persistent requests with regards to FW has not been implemented if it was so easy to code.
Want to bet that there's a wall with some holes from some hapless Dev trying to think of ways to add it without killing FW in the process?

A lot of consciously chose not to do the blob thing, aka. null, don't force it down our throats now .. at least not without adding some other venue where we can kill each other.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#23 - 2012-01-05 18:19:05 UTC
Hrett wrote:
I was going to post on our corp boards today to comment about lack of targets since it seems many caldari have moved on. I appreciate the addition of possible new targets, but this is a bit overkill. ;). Thanks for the attention though.

Keeping an open mind...



I absolutely agree, FW needs more numbers. But it needs improvement so much more so. It's not the idea of allowing Alliances into FW, its the timing of this change. I think Faction Warfare should see its fixes and improvements worked on first, and once the core system is finally iterated upon, THAN the floodgates should be open to invite a larger participation level. This change should take place after summer expansion, when FW should see some actual improvement to the core system.

Increasing numbers without making Faction Warfare fundamentally more entertaining and more meaningful in terms of occupation / sovereignty effects does nothing for the community or the feature. People have been slowly leaving over the years, its not that there's not fun fights amongst those of us that are left, there certainly are, but there isn't a true "carrot in front of the horse" that keeps people sticking around for the long haul other than for purely arbitrary reasons.

This will simply increase the amount of people passing through the revolving door, joining FW and leaving when they realize its pointless other than being a large wardec more or less.

One advantage though, once Alliances join up, if CCP hasn't worked on anything else in the FW system, we'll have that many more players demanding improvements here on the forums!! FW will have a lot more exposure in terms of people complaining about the core issues that need to be fixed if CCP's approach here is to increase participation in a system without fixing it first. Still, that's not much of a "bright side" to this change.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#24 - 2012-01-05 18:23:01 UTC
A reminder for the Devs - much feedback about this Alliance issue will likely be appearing in this thread, the primary one regarding Faction Warfare changes. I'll do my best to herd the cats into either this thread or the other, but due to its nature the main thread is bound to have as much feedback as this one will regarding the issue. Definitely keep an eye out here if you're genuinely seeking the community's thoughts regarding the proposed changes.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Shaalira D'arc
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-01-05 18:37:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaalira D'arc
The remote rep standings fix was long overdue, so kudos for that.

I would have to agree that a re-examination of fundamental FW mechanics, such as plexes and missions, is more urgent than shoehorning Alliances into FW.

That said, I'm rather ambivalent about the 'alliances in FW' prospect. There are a number of corporations that would like to join FW, if they didn't have to break up their alliance to do so. On the other hand, there is a danger of inducing hundreds-strong blobs and supercap warfare into an area of PvP that largely goes without. I think the standings requirement isn't enough. One proposal fielded by the community, which I endorse, is that alliances can enter FW as long as they don't hold sovereignty.

If you want an RP explanation behind that, say the Empires would rather not allow capsuleers to bear their flag, when those capsuleers are making competing territorial claims.
Princess Nexxala
Quantum Cats Syndicate
#26 - 2012-01-05 18:52:54 UTC
I have to disagree with you on this point. While what you state is in fact a problem...the primary problem facing FW right now is a lack of stuff to shoot. In relation to that point is the standings bug that occurs when repping flashy friendlies...making it harder for many FW members to expand beyond standard war targets when it comes to finding stuff to shoot.

This addresses both of those issues nicely.

I for one cant wait to see terrible alliances joining FW in order to own all us FW noobs :) Should make for a good time.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The primary problem facing the Faction Warfare system is a lack of effective rewards for encouraging players to go out and fight, coupled with a lack of consequence and lack of meaning to the occupation of enemy faction's systems. Simply put, any fighting that goes on amongst the factions right now is completely arbitrary and grudge-driven, NOT mechanically driven. The "I'm fighting you just because" carrot went rotten years ago.

nom nom

MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Pen Is Out
#27 - 2012-01-05 18:57:42 UTC
Shaalira D'arc wrote:
The remote rep standings fix was long overdue, so kudos for that.

I would have to agree that a re-examination of fundamental FW mechanics, such as plexes and missions, is more urgent than shoehorning Alliances into FW.

That said, I'm rather ambivalent about the 'alliances in FW' prospect. There are a number of corporations that would like to join FW, if they didn't have to break up their alliance to do so. On the other hand, there is a danger of inducing hundreds-strong blobs and supercap warfare into an area of PvP that largely goes without. I think the standings requirement isn't enough. One proposal fielded by the community, which I endorse, is that alliances can enter FW as long as they don't hold sovereignty.

If you want an RP explanation behind that, say the Empires would rather not allow capsuleers to bear their flag, when those capsuleers are making competing territorial claims.


I totally agree that fixes to current aspects of FW need to take priority over adding new features. Fixing the -5 rep is a huge step for that (as many of the corps operate as "privateers" for more targets). Other fixes/changes are also needed.
Victory points: Remove them or make them useful.
Occupancy: Again, give it a practical (and not just RP) purpose (i.e. bonuses to the occupant, negative modifiers for the opponent, etc.)

As far as alliances go, I am certainly for them IF they cannot hold sov. The only thing you would accomplish by not doing this is making lowsec a sort of null sec without the bubbles/bombs.
Am I also to assume that by adding alliances into militia, those alliances would be able to participate in the Alliance Tournaments? There are plenty of good pilots in militia that can't do that right now unless they leave for null.
SPYDERWOLF
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-01-05 19:11:47 UTC
I like that idea make it advantageous to join FW no alliances that hold sov would probably make a lot more appealing to people
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Pen Is Out
#29 - 2012-01-05 19:15:42 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rona Atani wrote:
...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?

A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.


My hope is the that following question can be answered no:

Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc?

If not, then read on:

My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)

Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar
#30 - 2012-01-05 19:37:41 UTC
I think FW itself should be fixed before allowing whole alliances to join. I've done reading and heard a lot of opinions.

Yes, it would encourage blobbing on a gross scale. I enjoy organized fleet fights (see also: the recent defense of a CTRL-Q customs office, iirc), but not wanton blobs whenever a large corp is bored. Of course, if a large group wants to blob, they'll blob.

And there is where FW can be fixed. Give larger groups something to do other than camp stargates. The plexing system is a bit better, now that the complexes respawn every half hour. Even so, there is not a lot of incentive to take complexes and occupy a system. Why? There is no reward, other than bragging rights!

I think, for example, it would be cool if Incursion-like debuffs occured if you occupy an enemy sov system, especially if such debuffs applied directly and only to the faction that lost the system. Let's say the Minmatar militia takes Arzad. I think it would be neat if all Amarr FW suffered some slight debuffs while in Minmatar-occupied Arzad, as this would provide incentive for the Minmatar to take it (and reap easier kills after), and for the Amarr to defend (so they don't suffer the debuffs). And for a system that is completely uncontested and occupancy matches sov, provide a "home field advantage" buff.

Something, people. Ever since the Incursions started we know you can do system-wide buffs/debuffs, and it would certainly make FW interesting and occupancy worthwhile. Once that's done, alliances can come in and sway the tide of battles.

Fix FW, make it worthwhile. Then talk about alliances joining.
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#31 - 2012-01-05 19:42:07 UTC
How about "cannot dock in system controlled by opposing Militia"

Always found it odd I can dock up in a 24th IC station in a system that is under Amarrian control...

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Pen Is Out
#32 - 2012-01-05 19:42:52 UTC
Rek Jaiga wrote:

I think, for example, it would be cool if Incursion-like debuffs occured if you occupy an enemy sov system, especially if such debuffs applied directly and only to the faction that lost the system. Let's say the Minmatar militia takes Arzad. I think it would be neat if all Amarr FW suffered some slight debuffs while in Minmatar-occupied Arzad, as this would provide incentive for the Minmatar to take it (and reap easier kills after), and for the Amarr to defend (so they don't suffer the debuffs). And for a system that is completely uncontested and occupancy matches sov, provide a "home field advantage" buff.


I am very much against any stick (as opposed to carrot) mechanism in FW. This will just encourage people to leave for the winning side when things look bad. The big thing that discourages plexing for me right now are NPC's: what you suggest cripples fighting in systems even more.

I am all for carrots to make plexing worthwhile though, but don't mess with the ability to pvp. If you do, the underdog at the time (who is usually the underdog for lack of active people) will have even more against them.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-01-05 19:44:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Any chance that the in-game calculator can get some love?

I would like to be able to use the number pad for operators (+ - / *) and = (num pad enter)

The fact that I cannot do this makes me want to keep a real calc at my desk or tab out of the game.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#34 - 2012-01-05 19:50:07 UTC
chatgris wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rona Atani wrote:
...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?

A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.


My hope is the that following question can be answered no:

Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc?

If not, then read on:

My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)

Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?


Agreed, we need a clarified set of rules from the developers outlining what will cause what post-bug-fix.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#35 - 2012-01-05 20:23:02 UTC
"Fix FW first, open door after" .. this seems to be the mantra du jour .

I can live/work with that Smile

- Occupancy needs consequences attached (carrots for the wabbits!)
- NPC balance needs to be addressed one way or another.
- Missions need tweaks to discourage the annoyingly common solo bombers.
Night Epoch
Perkone
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-01-05 21:07:17 UTC
New NeoCom Screenshots

Great work m8s.
VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#37 - 2012-01-05 21:10:57 UTC
I like the functionality of the new Neocom, especially the scaling. The only thing it is lacking that I really, really have had my heart set on was, "Align Top/Bottom". If I could have that with the window icons center in the bar, it would be phenomenal for Eyefinity setups.

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP

CCP Masterplan
C C P
C C P Alliance
#38 - 2012-01-05 21:12:09 UTC
chatgris wrote:
CCP Masterplan wrote:
Rona Atani wrote:
...could you perhaps comment on whether the logi bug for fw pilots has been fixed (where you lose faction standing for repping flashy corp members)?

A fix for that has just gone in for testing today.


My hope is the that following question can be answered no:

Do you lose any faction standing for repping any gcc or perma-flashy(who is <-5 but not currently gcc) regardless of whether that perma flashy is in your corp, militia etc?

My answer is: No
With this change, you will only lose faction standing for (in order of increasing penalty) aggressing, killing and podding members of your own faction.
You WILL receive a sec status penalty for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged)
You WILL inherit GCC for assisting an outlaw or someone with GCC regardless of corp/alliance/faction (this is unchanged)

chatgris wrote:

If not, then read on:

My question is about the scope (e.g. corporation members, militia, anyone? gcc or perma flashy?)

Is there any difference between repping a gcc or perma-flashy person?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy at all?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your militia?

Do you lose faction standing for repping any gcc/perma-flashy in your corporation?

Answers in no particular order:
No
No
No
No

Hopefully that covers it all :)

"This one time, on patch day..."

@ccp_masterplan  |  Team Five-0: Rewriting the law

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#39 - 2012-01-05 21:20:38 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Adding more pilots to an already broken system will not "fix" Faction Warfare.

The goal is NOT simply to add more pilots to militia rosters. It is to make the gameplay fun enough and meaningful enough that people will be attracted to it. .



The question is how can they make plexing meaningful?

There are 3 general views:

1) give me isk/rewards for plexing (lp payout/require vp to cash in lp etc.)

2) give me consequences for plexing (don't let the enemy dock there/have stations change ownership etc.)

3) Make plexing an activity that the community respects. (make it pvp instead of pve - and not just blob wins etc.)

I think CCP needs to look at all three of these things. But IMO the most important one, by far, is the 3rd.

Yes that is the most difficult but I think EVE is worth it.


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

Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#40 - 2012-01-05 21:43:06 UTC
CCP Konflikt wrote:
Arkady Sadik wrote:
Quote:
* Adding Alliances to Faction Warfare.
Inevitable I guess.

Could you give a very quick rundown on how that works, exactly? Is it "alliance joins", or "corp in alliance joins"? If the former, how are the standing requirements handled? Are there other restrictions of some kind?

(Also, if you can, I'd be curious about your opinion on how that will affect FW as a whole, and what your idea for FW is so that that is an improvement :-))


All corporations within an alliance need a 0.5 standing to join, if a corp within the alliance goes below min standings that alliance is ejected from FW 48 hours after a warning, unless the standings are regained.

A corp of the same faction may join an alliance of that same faction without dropping their allegiance. A corp of a different faction will be required to drop it's FW allegiance before joining the alliance, where it will automatically join the militia of the alliance.

Edit: The executor is the person who enters the alliance into FW.

Feel free to ask more.


This standing mechanic sure makes it almost impossible to join fw with alliance who has properly protected themself from takeover etc...

Maybe it just for those who really want to roleplay militia alliance or for current militia corporations.

WTS: standing alts for caldari militia