These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#161 - 2012-01-11 16:52:44 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
..It also is just as likely that very few Alliances, if any, actually make the switch..

That's my problem, there is no 'switch'. There is absolutely nothing to lose and tons to gain by joining an alliance up, the only sacrifice they might have to make is move high-sec alts into neutral corps and that is it.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
..and was actually voted upon, ratified, and added to CCP's backlog three years ago..

It is indeed probably the oldest, came up during the discussion prior to Empyrean Age going live and all the RP entities saw great potential in FW as an RP vehicle .. been voted on 3-4 times in slightly different shades over the years I think.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I personally think that ultimately Alliance involvement with the Faction Warfare scene are inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.

Most definitely, alliances will be awesome to have involved .. but not with FW in its current state. If a ferry is taking on water you try to mend it before loading more passengers!
Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.
Damassys Kadesh
Strix Ridens
Lock Range Enjoyers
#162 - 2012-01-11 17:36:45 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.


lol!

Sourem Itharen > Congratulations Lady Kadesh, you have been selected by trial of fire and blood, under the watchful eyes of God, to represent Lord Khanid as his champion in the Imperial Succession trials -YC117

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#163 - 2012-01-11 18:00:35 UTC
Damassys Kadesh wrote:
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Note: Above analogy is not entirely accurate as a sinking ferry might be saved by a dead'ish person plugging the hole so more people onboard can be a good thing, whereas FW does not enjoy such luxury.


lol!


Yeah what?? I mean, don't get me wrong - we Minmatar definitely resort to creative measures to keep our ships intact (Duct tape, mainly) - but CORPSES?? Lets not give the Amarr any reason to look down their noses at us than they already have.

My people are still recovering from the negative stereotypes reinforced when everyone ended up spending too much time in our version of Captain Quarters.

We enjoy a "rustic lifestyle" but we're not that foul.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#164 - 2012-01-11 18:16:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:
I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM)

Under the pros of that proposal we see:

"more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders"

We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either .

Is this the proposal you are refering to?


Yes, it is, along with this proposal as well.

Both proposals are far more nuanced and cautious in nature than simply allowing Alliances to join with ONLY a simple standings requirement. I urge CCP to remember these provisions suggested by the players, even if they are going to base a current change on a three-year-old set of opinions.

The provisions of BOTH proposals, which were both overwhelming "yes" votes, also are completely based around the idea of FW existing as a bridge to nullsec gameplay, and a training ground for Alliances. This is totally out of touch with the reality of the current situation.

Current Alliances, I feel, would much rather recruit and train their own pilots directly, and historically have scoffed at the PvP prowess of the militias and wouldn't trust us these days to train their PvP pilots anyways. (The Mittani is famous for not being afraid to recruit, train, and make effective use of players of ANY skill point level). Furthermore, pilots enlisting in Faction Warfare are often pursuing a PvP style that is fundamentally different than nullsec warfare, so training within militias for Alliances to take elsewhere would be of limited use, at best.

The current community has been shaped by dedicated players who see Faction Warfare not as a stepping stone, but as a fundamentally fun and worthwhile feature in its own right, many of us have no intention of moving beyond Faction Warfare if it is revitalized again. The reality of the current demographic, in contrast to that of the time of these proposals, should most certainly be considered in this decision.

None of us can stop CCP here if they truly mean to see this implemented sooner than summer expansion to the feature, I'm simply asking them to respond to these concerns with an explanation that they are taking steps to protect current Faction Warfare enthusiasts from potential abuse and disruption of the gameplay they have shaped for themselves given the tools handed to them by CCP, broken or otherwise.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#165 - 2012-01-11 18:39:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Yeah what?? ..

Never mentioned anything about the Matari peoples, you read that into it all on your own. Perhaps deep down, in your subconscious, you really believe that your people are "that foul".

Lay down your arms, come home and be cleansed by the divine light!

PS: Sorry couldn't resist Big smile

Searching Evelopedia for "FW alliances" and linking the ones where alliance participation is requested/queried:
Faction Warfare - Allied Forces
Alliances and FW Pt.1
Alliances and FW Pt.2
Fix FW
FW - Request for info

So yeah, it has been one of the bigger points for our lobby over the years, not as big as meaningful mechanics though Smile
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#166 - 2012-01-11 18:42:34 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:
I'm assuming you are referring to this backlogged proposal:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces_(CSM)

Under the pros of that proposal we see:

"more pvp for empire/lowsec based alliances that don't want to become sov holders"

We see other limits on how alliances would join in that proposal including no defensive plexing. Although this is not specifically addressed, based on the underlying threads, it appears the alliances would not be able to run fw missions either .

Is this the proposal you are refering to?


Yes, it is, along with this proposal as well.

Both proposals are far more nuanced and cautious in nature than simply allowing Alliances to join with ONLY a simple standings requirement. I urge CCP to remember these provisions suggested by the players, even if they are going to base a current change on a three-year-old set of opinions.

The provisions of BOTH proposals, which were both overwhelming "yes" votes, also are completely based around the idea of FW existing as a bridge to nullsec gameplay, and a training ground for Alliances. This is totally out of touch with the reality of the current situation.....


I didn't see that one. Which is incompatible with the second proposal. Although its true both proposals seemed to have substantial support from the csm, none of the relevant assembly hall threads received very much support from players.

To be fair to ccp I don't think there is very much consensus on specific changes to fw. They just need to make the call on what they are going to do and get on with it.

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

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#167 - 2012-01-11 19:03:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:

To be fair to ccp I don't think there is very much consensus on specific changes to fw. They just need to make the call on what they are going to do and get on with it.


This is a dangerous path to take. Players may not agree, but they have put forth plenty of suggestions and concerns that should be taken into consideration.

Lest we forget what got us into Crucible to begin with - "making the call" to just keep releasing content package after content package, straying further away from the wishes of the players and not paying heed to the warnings that everyone gave them leading up to Incarna's arguably disasterous release.

Saying "Faction warfare pilots aren't going to agree anyways, just do SOMETHING, anything, than stick to it regardless of what they say...." will not bring about a better feature in the end.

CCP should not just throw blinders on and trudge forward. It is absolutely CCP's decision, but part of their new corp direction is to listen to developers and players alike rather than sticking to agendas arbitrarily.

The fact that we disagree is all the more reason to be cautious, and listen twice as hard, rather than simply running with something because they need to deliver on promised "FW changes".

Bottom line is we've been working hard the last year to reverse the trend of a FW community that was hopeless and feeling abandoned and ignored by CCP, left for dead and betrayed by the no-show at the Fanfest roundtable.

"making a decision and running with it" without being able communicate that they've addressed the very real problems with some proposals (previous suggestions like removing NPC's from highsec were even more disastrous potentially) is only going to rip open the old wounds and cause the FW community to feel like CCP doesn't care about their opinions or feedback once again.

We need to be working to improve the player / developer relationship, not strain it further by making arbitrary decisions because its more difficult to try to find a middle ground.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#168 - 2012-01-12 00:52:35 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

CCP should not just throw blinders on and trudge forward. It is absolutely CCP's decision, but part of their new corp direction is to listen to developers and players alike rather than sticking to agendas arbitrarily.

The fact that we disagree is all the more reason to be cautious, and listen twice as hard, rather than simply running with something because they need to deliver on promised "FW changes".

Bottom line is we've been working hard the last year to reverse the trend of a FW community that was hopeless and feeling abandoned and ignored by CCP, left for dead and betrayed by the no-show at .....


I'm not suggesting they throw on blinders.

Fw players have been trying longer than a year. That is sorta the point. After this long we couldn't even agree on whether they should take action on fw for crucible. No more round tables or threadnaughts are likely to provide that idea we can all agree on. Basta!

They need to take what they have read and do their best. We need to accept that it won't please everyone. Until they actually put something on tranquility they can't begin to iterate/balance/tweak it.

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

Esna Pitoojee
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#169 - 2012-01-12 23:42:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Esna Pitoojee
Unless a significant change is applied to basic FW mechanics (and even basic lowsec mechanics), I will continue to oppose alliance introduction into FW.

First, let's consider the goals. Keep in mind these are my percieved goals on what FW is meant to be; if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me:

FW is intended to foment a sort of "educational PvP" environment:: With the addition of the free-join ticket from the advanced military tutorial, CCP seemed to be pushing the idea of FW as a ground for rookies to test their feet in the waters in an environtment where their contributions would make a difference and they could act without expecting to be shamelessly ganked by a several-hundred-man fleet.

FW is intended to reward living in lowsec, rather than the obvious immense wealth of nullsec: The LP store changes provided cheap rewards entirely unlike anywhere else in lowsec; for a long time, it was one of the few time-efficient ways of competing with the Sactum Grind or moon-mat gold mine.

FW is intended to be a small(er) gang environment: I honestly can't say why I feel this way, as I don't have CCP quotes or game changes specifially pointing to this; however, it has been my feeling for the longest time that Faction Warfare was intended to be a means in which players could engage in PvP without diving into the hundreds-of-men, lag-ridden, capital-spamming realm of nullsec. (Not to say that such a state in nullsec is inherently bad - that's another discussion. I'm just saying here that not all people are interested in that, and it seems to me FW was meant to provide an environment in which PvP could occur apeart from the great nullsec showdowns.)

FW was intended to be a mechanic linked to the storyline of the EVE universe: Simple enough. I mean, we had a whole expansion, many news articles, and a (IMO terribad) book involving the storyline ramifications of FW.


Now let's look at the issues:

Cynos. Cynos everywhere: We only just recently got out from "under the thumb" of the large nullsec alliances potentially dropping X dozen supercarriers into every FW engagement (or, in PL's case, camping our gates and stations with supercarriers for a couple of weeks). This, in turn, has encouraged smaller corps to bring in their assets, as suddenly throwing down a bunch of battleships or even a single capital is once more capable of turning the fight, rather than simply being supercarrier bait. Now you're proposing to bring the "big boys" back in again and once more marginalize the contributions of anyone who can't provide a batphone to their capital/supercapital fleet of choice.

Plexes and capturing: Sub-set of two different issues here - one, NPCs are still horribly imbalanced (Amarr plexes of any size can be solo'ed in a speedy frigate; Caldari plexes cause a missilespam only somewhat less painful than trying to kite a Drake gang). Two, there's no reward for taking part in the plexes. At all. Not for killing the NPCs, spending hours orbiting those little buttons, or for showing up for the often painfully-boring bunker bashes.

Greed drives activity: Only 1/3 of the activites in FW (missioning, plexing, roaming looking for a fight) have a significant monetary reward in them. The mechanic that FW was built around - system occupancy - has no reward whatsoever. Plexing comes down to being the job of a handful of roleplaying players, and the surpremely bored PvPers. That's right - the main mechanic of FW is viewed by most players involved as being on the same level as things like comedy fit roams, conga lines, and jetcan ASCII art - something to do when there literally is nothing else to do.

NPC imbalances: You're proposing that large numbers of persons should be able to join any one of four factions, and presumably acting on the belief that all four factions will have a roughly equal join rate. I say this won't happen. As discussed above, the ship requirements for completing different factions' plexes are VASTLY different, and unfortunately this extends to missions as well.

Missions again: While we're on this little rant, I'll touch on this as well. Missions were designed for fleet participation. But, nobody does them with significant fleets (and as far as I know, haven't from the beginning). The most you get is 4-5 guys going out to speed-run a bunch of missions together in long-range, high-speed ships (which are incidentally the preferred ship for running missions solo as well). To throw out a massive red herring (but one I think is accurate), FW missions were designed in the era of RR BS fleets and now exist in the nano-alpha era - an era they've proved totally unsuitable for.

Taking the faction out of faction warfare: Finally, a point that is of significantly less interest to most general PvPers, but an issue for me: System occupancy currently has serious roleplay ramifications for the factional parties involved. Unfortunately, in my opinion, CCP has made it clear that systems that are occupied by hostile powers may suffer ground invasions by said hostile forces. Now you are proposing to draw massive numbers of players into a heavily imbalanced system (see above) and asking the few remaining roleplayers to simply roll with the results when the ability to protect the systems they're interested in is essentially taken out of their hands by sheer force of numbers.



Deal with these issues. Figure out what you want FW to be.

Then we can talk about alliances again.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#170 - 2012-01-13 08:16:01 UTC
Esna Pitoojee wrote:
... if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me...

I see what you did there! Devious, Esna is devious!

Pretty much spot on with just a few minor quibbles not worth mentioning. The whole "CCP present a plan!" has bee flogged by some of us for years, and more recently by everyone in the aftermath of the FF (Fanfest Fiasco) .. their inability to do such a seemingly simple thing is why I have close to zero faith in them knowing what the hell they are doing.
Darkest Shadow
#171 - 2012-01-13 08:26:25 UTC
New Customizable Neocom

For me, the blink notifications for all icons on the customizable neocom on SISI is much harder to see than the "current" or "older" neocom. Perhaps make the color brighter or more white-ish with a frosty white background behind the icon that stays lite until the end-user clicks on it -- which will mimic what it does now on TQ. That way when the wallet "flashes" the background will stand out and be very easy to notice; something we're all used to now but slightly different too.

Another suggestion, let us rename user-created groups and put an icon to them from pre-loaded icons that the devs or someone with CCP will put together, something to the extent of an "icon gallery". That way we don't have to put up with the generic blue layer icon. Instead, have icons that are the redesigned to look like the icons or the same icons as on the neocom now, and maybe even new ones that help in organization and creativity that can be added in the future. I believe it'll give the end-user much more control and robustness to the user experience.


** Devs could even have contests or some kind of volunteer event to let the playerbase help design some useful and cool icons that the winners would have their icons uploaded to the icon gallery for all of us to use in our neocoms.


Also, I am unable to drag and drop items from the neocom Eve Menu to the neocom bar on SISI -- I hope this is being worked on and will be fixed before it goes live cause I think all of us would appreciate "creating shortcuts" or placing items from the neocom Eve Menu straight onto the neocom bar and in the neocom groups.I think the customizable neocom is a great idea as it will help organizing what we need without cluttering the screen but I must say it will take some time getting used to. I think with the ideas I've posted here, and above, will help make the neocom better than it is now.



In summary, please make all the customizable neocom background to a bright frosty white color in the background for all blink notifications and enable renaming of user-created groups on the neocom with the ability (in the future) to add the ability for the end-user to assign icons to each user-created group so we can really make our neocoms unique and creative. Also fix the current issues with the neocom and be able to drag and drop "shortcuts" from the Eve Menu to the neocom bar and user-created groups.



Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54611&find=unread
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#172 - 2012-01-13 15:42:26 UTC
Esna Pitoojee wrote:
Unless a significant change is applied to basic FW mechanics (and even basic lowsec mechanics), I will continue to oppose alliance introduction into FW.

First, let's consider the goals. Keep in mind these are my percieved goals on what FW is meant to be; if I am differing from CCP, CCP feel free to correct me:

FW is intended to foment a sort of "educational PvP" environment:: With the addition of the free-join ticket from the advanced military tutorial, CCP seemed to be pushing the idea of FW as a ground for rookies to test their feet ......


Please give your source for this.

FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.

The smaller the gang the more important each individual pilot's skill becomes.



Esna Pitoojee wrote:

FW is intended to be a small(er) gang environment: I honestly can't say why I feel this way, as I don't have CCP quotes or game changes specifially pointing to this; .


Look no further than the fact that fw pelxes are ship size restricted. So yes I agree they seemed to intend this to be geared twoard smaller scale battles.


Esna Pitoojee wrote:


Cynos. Cynos everywhere: We only just recently got out from "under the thumb" of the large nullsec alliances potentially dropping X dozen supercarriers into every FW engagement (or, in PL's case, camping our gates and stations with supercarriers for a couple of weeks). This, in turn, has encouraged smaller corps to bring in their assets, as suddenly throwing down a bunch of battleships or even a single capital is once more capable of turning the fight, rather than simply being supercarrier bait. Now you're proposing to bring the "big boys" back in again and once more marginalize the contributions of anyone who can't provide a batphone to their capital/supercapital fleet of choice..



This really has nothing to do with what I consider the core of fw - fighting for occupancy. These sorts of fights are just low sec battles. And yes bringing in a carrier can alter the result of a low sec battle. If you don't like capitals fight in the fw plexes.

Esna Pitoojee wrote:

Plexes and capturing: Sub-set of two different issues here - one, NPCs are still horribly imbalanced (Amarr plexes of any size can be solo'ed in a speedy frigate; Caldari plexes cause a missilespam only somewhat less painful than trying to kite a Drake gang). Two, there's no reward for taking part in the plexes. At all. Not for killing the NPCs, spending hours orbiting those little buttons, or for showing up for the often painfully-boring bunker bashes.


Occupancy plexing is broken. But it should be the ultimate goal of fw. That means as a faction warrior you should not think I am fighting for occupancy to make isk. You should be thinking I make isk so I can fight for occupnancy.

This is a hard sell because fw occupancy is pve. If it were pvp then gaining occupancy would be more respected and this would make sense.
Esna Pitoojee wrote:

Greed drives activity: Only 1/3 of the activites in FW (missioning, plexing, roaming looking for a fight) have a significant monetary reward in them. The mechanic that FW was built around - system occupancy - has no reward whatsoever. Plexing comes down to being the job of a handful of roleplaying players, and the surpremely bored PvPers. That's right - the main mechanic of FW is viewed by most players involved as being on the same level as things like comedy fit roams, conga lines, and jetcan ASCII art - something to do when there literally is nothing else to do.


This is the carebear in you talking. People want to play games that are fun and challenging. Grinding isk is not so fun or challenging but it allows you to pvp which is fun and challenging. CCP needs to make occupancy plexing fun/challenging, not another way to grind isk. Although I agree some sort of reward would be nice. It is definitely secondary.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#173 - 2012-01-13 15:51:51 UTC

Esna Pitoojee wrote:


NPC imbalances: You're proposing that large numbers of persons should be able to join any one of four factions, and presumably acting on the belief that all four factions will have a roughly equal join rate. I say this won't happen. As discussed above, the ship requirements for completing different factions' plexes are VASTLY different, and unfortunately this extends to missions as well.


I agree balance missions so they are all about as hard as the amarr missions - where there is missile spam and target painters.

Esna Pitoojee wrote:

Missions again: While we're on this little rant, I'll touch on this as well. Missions were designed for fleet participation. But, nobody does them with significant fleets (and as far as I know, haven't from the beginning). The most you get is 4-5 guys going out to speed-run a bunch of missions together in long-range, high-speed ships (which are incidentally the preferred ship for running missions solo as well). To throw out a massive red herring (but one I think is accurate), FW missions were designed in the era of RR BS fleets and now exist in the nano-alpha era - an era they've proved totally unsuitable for..


Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.

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

DJB16
DJB Alpha
#174 - 2012-01-13 16:07:32 UTC
Darkest Shadow wrote:
New Customizable Neocom

Also, I am unable to drag and drop items from the neocom Eve Menu to the neocom bar on SISI -- I hope this is being worked on and will be fixed before it goes live cause I think all of us would appreciate "creating shortcuts" or placing items from the neocom Eve Menu straight onto the neocom bar and in the neocom groups.I think the customizable neocom is a great idea as it will help organizing what we need without cluttering the screen but I must say it will take some time getting used to. I think with the ideas I've posted here, and above, will help make the neocom better than it is now.



In summary, please make all the customizable neocom background to a bright frosty white color in the background for all blink notifications and enable renaming of user-created groups on the neocom with the ability (in the future) to add the ability for the end-user to assign icons to each user-created group so we can really make our neocoms unique and creative. Also fix the current issues with the neocom and be able to drag and drop "shortcuts" from the Eve Menu to the neocom bar and user-created groups.



Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54611&find=unread



i like ur idea bout the blinking and so u know ive only been able to drag and drop from the main E menu on the neocom

i wanna put LOGS back on the main bar
i also want a new button to get to the saved fittings window

currently its fitting then expand then click saved fittings then click collapse then exit when i just wanna open the saved fittings so i can link my fittings or import/export them
tbh i thought the above neocom button (or atleast a shortcut) would have been made when the saved fittings feature came out......
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CLICKS TO GET SOMEWHERE IS ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA!!! (esp if its sommit u use several times every few hours (incursion runners for sure use it alot))
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#175 - 2012-01-13 16:28:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:

Please give your source for this.

FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.


The source is those Alliance documents we talked about previously. CCP's clear intention for FW is as a "hybrid PvP / PvE gameplay environment" that serves to help pilots ease the transition from high sec missions to nullsec warfare.

Granted, this has little to do with what FW is today, and although you and I have somewhat differing views on exactly how to get FW to where it should be, CCP's original intention is pretty well documented. Only CCP can step forward and explain whether this is still their vision for FW or if that vision has changed. I certainly hope they do, and soon, since this is the primary reason that the FW community has so many different opinions on how to "fix FW". If CCP clued us in on how they viewed FW today, we could do a much better job of focusing our dialogue and feedback to help them achieve that goal.

Quote:
This is the carebear in you talking. People want to play games that are fun and challenging. Grinding isk is not so fun or challenging but it allows you to pvp which is fun and challenging. CCP needs to make occupancy plexing fun/challenging, not another way to grind isk. Although I agree some sort of reward would be nice. It is definitely secondary.


I don't think someone is a carebear because they want to be paid to do what they do, as long as what they want to do is PvP. One of the most common suggestions over the years that has faded a bit from recent discussion is LP-for-kills. FW pilots DO want to be compensated in a greater way for kills, but that greed doesn't make them carebears.

I personally am dubious about paying for kills only because I have serious doubts that it can be done in a way that is fair and doesnt promote fraud or abuse. Paying for kills can also penalizes pilots like myself who fly Logistics and often aren't on killmails despite playing an integral part of an engagement.

Ultimately, I agree with you, there needs to be motivation to fight that supercedes raw isk-generation. But I think that Esna has a fair point in that isk incentives such as LP rewards for seizing plexes (as long as they are PvP-centric environments) still work just as good at motivating people to fight as any other reason.

You and I will seek out fights for fights sake - but this is not everyone, and the new players (who still are part of CCP's vision for FW unless they say otherwise, and regardless of what we think) will need some more base motivations for submitting themselves to such losses early in their careers, that go beyond pure PvP for the sake of PvP - they need to either see FW occupancy as something worth engaging in (which means more consequences, more significance to sov holding) or something that at least pays them on par with mission running so that they don't default to that in their early days.

Quote:
Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.


Again, this is just a subjective opinion, that some of us disagree on. As cited in the Alliances in FW documents, CCP's intention and design philosophy for the FW missions was precisely to combine PvP, and PvE, and while you personally feel that they must be completely seperate, others here don't. And thats fine. Both are valid ways to shape the feature, if done with care. I've seen mission fleets used to bait for fights, and plenty of player-on-player action has certainly taken place inside missions before. They are certainly not IDEAL for this purpose, but the concept works. Missions that are on public overviews do attract PvP in a substantial way that private ones do not.

I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.

And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Garr Earthbender
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2012-01-13 16:45:42 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.

And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that!


Well, I think I agree with Hans here. FW missions SHOULD be soloable, but in heavy ships. I realize that making them exactly like hi sec lvl 4 missions is a bad idea, but still..... if you're fleeted up with a 'medium size' (not sure the size exactly) fleet, then you should almost be able to blitz them.

Solo bombers suck.

-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#177 - 2012-01-13 17:52:18 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Please give your source for this.

FW and small gang pvp is not a good way to learn pvp. Its much easier to join a large null sec alliance that will tell you exactly how to fit your ship, teach you the basic mechanics of fleets, in an enviornement where your inexperience at pvp will not hurt - blob warfare.


The source is those Alliance documents we talked about previously. CCP's clear intention for FW is as a "hybrid PvP / PvE gameplay environment" that serves to help pilots ease the transition from high sec missions to nullsec warfare.
.
Granted, this has little to do with what FW is today, and although you and I have somewhat differing views on exactly how to get FW to where it should be, CCP's original intention is pretty well documented.


Unless I am misunderstanding which "alliance documents" you are referring to, none of those documents were even written by ccp employees. Those were just comments by players.

I agree players often *claim* "fw was intended by ccp to help noobs get into pvp" But I just never actually saw anything from ccp saying that. Yet it gets repeated often.

Regardless of “CCP’s intent”. It’s may be better for new players who don’t want to learn on their own to join the null sec blobs and be told how to fit their ships and what to do before they try to do the smaller scale pvp of fw.


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I don't think someone is a carebear because they want to be paid to do what they do, as long as what they want to do is PvP. One of the most common suggestions over the years that has faded a bit from recent discussion is LP-for-kills. FW pilots DO want to be compensated in a greater way for kills, but that greed doesn't make them carebears.

I personally am dubious about paying for kills only because I have serious doubts that it can be done in a way that is fair and doesnt promote fraud or abuse. Paying for kills can also penalizes pilots like myself who fly Logistics and often aren't on killmails despite playing an integral part of an engagement.

Ultimately, I agree with you, there needs to be motivation to fight that supercedes raw isk-generation. But I think that Esna has a fair point in that isk incentives such as LP rewards for seizing plexes (as long as they are PvP-centric environments) still work just as good at motivating people to fight as any other reason.

I agree some rewards for plexing are in order but I disagree with the idea that “Greed drives activity” should be the motto of fw plexes. To me people who sit and gate camp with scouts 2 systems out in every direction are just like carebears. They are so busy counting isk and isk efficiency that they fail to realize this is a game. Like carebears they do nothing that is fun or challenging they just think they are “winning” because their wallets are getting fat.

It is impossible to make FW such that there will be a big enough gain to an individual to justify risking your ship. People shouldn’t look to joining a war so they can make money.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

You and I will seek out fights for fights sake - but this is not everyone, and the new players (who still are part of CCP's vision for FW unless they say otherwise, and regardless of what we think) will need some more base motivations for submitting themselves to such losses early in their careers, that go beyond pure PvP for the sake of PvP - they need to either see FW occupancy as something worth engaging in (which means more consequences, more significance to sov holding)….


The only reason I fight for the fights sake is because ccp offers nothing better. I want the fight to matter in a wider context. But my understanding of how it would mater and yours are different.
You keep saying fw occupancy meaning something = it must have more consequences and more significance to sov holding. And I keep disagreeing. Those two can be part of it. But the game itself will only be worthwhile if it is challenging and fun. I can’t stress how important this is enough.

Imagine you play a game that is like roulette where you can bet on black or red. But instead of playing with money you have to buy special credits called isk in order to play. Also when you win you don’t win money just more isk. You can never trade your isk for money. Now lets say people started complaining saying we don’t get enough isk. So the game makers painted half the red slots black. This way people could make allot of isk betting black. Who would play that?

That is essentially what people who are isk driven in this game are doing.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#178 - 2012-01-13 17:53:30 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Cearain wrote:

Why do you think they were designed for fleets? If someone has time and ability to join a fleet they should be pvping. Missions should be for times when there are no fleets up or you don't have much time to commit to fleets. Missions should be doable solo. Just not soloable in a stealth bomber.


Again, this is just a subjective opinion, that some of us disagree on. As cited in the Alliances in FW documents, CCP's intention and design philosophy for the FW missions was precisely to combine PvP, and PvE, and while you personally feel that they must be completely seperate, others here don't. And thats fine. Both are valid ways to shape the feature, if done with care. I've seen mission fleets used to bait for fights, and plenty of player-on-player action has certainly taken place inside missions before. They are certainly not IDEAL for this purpose, but the concept works. Missions that are on public overviews do attract PvP in a substantial way that private ones do not. .


Again you seem to refer to documents not even written by ccp employees to somehow prove ccp’s intent.
We have the mixture of pvp and npcs with plexes. It fails. You seem to think the solution is to make plexing pay more isk and create consequences. But paying more isk for a bad boring mechanic does not improve the game at all. It makes it worse.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I completely respect that you feel that they SHOULD be designed as solo endeavors when there is not any PvP around, but many pilots do see them and try to use them as a PvP-driver, and there's nothing wrong with that mindset, despite the problems the missions currently have in practice.

And yes, even if seen as a PvP driver, missions SHOULD be soloable in *heavy* ships, just not in tiny bombers. We certainly agree on that!


I don’t just “feel” they should be able to be done solo I gave reasons for it. Not everyone in fw has the time to join fleets all the time.

You claimed that missions and plexes should try to mix pvp and pve but the only reason you give for this is some anecdotal stories how you got a few fights that way. However, as I explained it is unlikely that you got those fights because of the npcs. You got those fights because of the beacons in local. You have never offered any sort of analysis of how npcs promote pvp.

We have overwhelming evidence that npcs hurt pvp opportunities. I have given anecdotal evidence. More importantly anyone involved in fw can see that the vast majority of pvp takes place outside of plexes where the npcs are. You might say well lets pay more isk for that then people will do that more. But that will just make it so winning occupancy *less* of a valued accomplishment.

I have posted numerous reasons explaining why npcs decrease pvp opportunities.(forced pve fits, forces your fleet to have many more ships so the other side won’t engage etc. etc.) There has never been any decent arguments how they will increase pvp in the long run. Just your stories about how a few times you got some fights by baiting others while you were doing missions.

Seriously, Hans think it through. Get a concrete idea of how fw could be great or let it be. Don’t just keep repeating half-baked ideas and saying well “some think this some think that.” Shooting rats sucks. Admit it. Paying people more isk to shoot more rats in fw plexes is a **** idea. If you don’t realize it yet, figure it out. Get a clear understanding of what needs to be done, before you push for change.

If Amarr ever wins fw I want others to think “they probably had to do some clever things and they probably have a lot of skilled pvpers.” Not “they must have spent endless hours shooting rats.”

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

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#179 - 2012-01-13 18:42:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
Cearain wrote:
You have never offered any sort of analysis of how npcs promote pvp...

I'll use an example: Lost (Griffin) and I (Punisher) came across an open minor in Sifilar I think it was, we start timer just as three (3) Thrashers show on short range .. instinct says run, yes?
Due to an aborted speed tanking attempt by a minnie, there was an NPC group within 30k of entrance so we decide to stay with me on warp-in and Lost keeping timer running .. 2nd-3rd Thrasher are intermittently jammed by Lost while I work on the first who can't overcome my active tank thanks to NPC eWar .. End result: 3 Trash cans and the biggest damn adrenaline high I have ever experienced.
In short: They allow one to fight against superior numbers/ships .. sometimes.
Cearain wrote:
We have overwhelming evidence that npcs hurt pvp opportunities...

Anecdotal evidence cannot, by its very nature, be overwhelming. Fact is that NPC both hurts and benefits PvP opportunities in roughly equal measure .. the current slant towards 'hurts' is due to differences in eWar (ie. NPC balance).
Cearain wrote:
If Amarr ever wins..

You mean WHEN Amarr wins. It is preordained! We will win because it is Right, Just and a Glory to God! ... Just sayin' Smile

Being restricted to using Amarr hulls (RP for the win!), the minimum viable (ie. PvP ready) ship I have been able to find to solo FW Lvl4's is the Sacrilege. Missions were not easy and required a lot of manual piloting, but definitely doable.
Although I think that aiming for a PvP HAC/PvE BC is a near perfect difficulty level, I fear that the bombers will merely be replaced by swarms of Drakes as even a crap-fit Drake is better at PvE than an officer fit 'any other BC'.

In my perfect world the missions/plexes are mixed up with some requiring hacking/archaeology, killing a specific spawn group (ie. not single commander), fetching an item or all of the above.
The problem is that there has be some PvE element if they are not become entirely trivial .. imagine how stupid plexing would be if all sides could use crap-fit solo frigates .. PvP in plexes would cease to exist even if everyone knew where everyone else was at all times, plexes would essentially become WoW styled battlegrounds with most action being in hub-pipe systems.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#180 - 2012-01-13 19:17:37 UTC
I've responded to your most recent post over in this thread, Cearain, only because once again we're back on the topic of NPC's and PvE vs PvP, and straying quite a bit off the topic of Alliances-in-FW, which is the only FW talk that should be in this thread. I'm as much to blame for that, but I wanted to move it elsewhere for the sake of those that have important things to say about the Neocom and other changes that are part of the SiSi package atm.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary