Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: Shaalira on 05 Jan 2012, 13:12
-
Now live on SiSi (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=54054&find=unread).
-
3 years too late.
-
By now, most, if not ALL, major FW corporations are either pirates not taking sec-hits for shooting enemy X, or quasi pirates that will have to chose; fix sec-rating or go full pirate. With piracy beign the rampant 'cool' thing to do, you have 3 guesses as to what option will be preferred.
As such, FW will soon be 'revitalized' in that there will hardly be FW anymore - there will be the low-sec play-ground for bored alliance folks tired of the failure null-sec has become, and the pirates, all who have a few fellow pirates or alliance mates in the actual militias. Low-sec will be nothing more than a huge, flashy-red hell-hole where anyone you meet HAVE to be shoot simply to avoid your own destruction. Any non-pirate non-alliance noob joining any militia will no longer be able to trust their own militia mates - those militia 'mates' are nothing more than alliance members who generally have no respect for people not in their alliance, or pirates who don't care how much the militia corp hates them or what their rank is.
In a year from now, FW as it was intended will be extinct. Low-sec will be entirely Untraversable by anyone who has not blued every flashy or, are one of them. Up until a couple years ago, I had always hoped CCP would fix the pirate vs vigilante mechanics, but frankly there is no such thing as a 'vigilante' far as CCP is concerned. Find me any reference to this kind of game-play anywhere, I dare you all.
The militia's staying somewhat honorable so that it would be militias vs pirates was effectively my final hope for a low-sec 'fix' and with every passing month I see less and less difference between militia fleets and corps and the self-appointed 'predators' of low-sec. I could be wrong about all this. I *HOPE* I am wrong about all this, becasue then I'll still have more reasons to keep my subs.
And I've not yet BEGUN on the issue of letting monolitic 1-million capitals alliances in who lost any and all understanding for what constitutes a fight or even 'fun', years ago.
-
/me waits for Bacch to get Rote into Facwar
:eek:
I otherwise agree with Bloodbird, though perhaps less extreme of a view.
-
I don't see how this will change the dynamic of lowsec. The apocalyptic "this is going to break EVE" stuff is kinda derp. And what on earth "honor" and "vigilantes" and "pirates" have to do with FW mechanics kinda escapes me inasmuch as the states of all of those things are pretty much completely unaffected by FW, with the possible exception of the latter, as pirates can use FW mechanics to avoid sec hits if they feel the desire to do so.
-
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=609659#post609659
Good post.
-
Yay. It seems CCP is finally taking a shotgun to Lassie's head and putting it out of its misery, several years too late.
No, seriously.
If they are not un-CCP-like levels of careful, they're going to kill FW with this, and probably lowsec too. Alliances are going to need hilariously strict requirements for entry into FW, far more than what CCP seems to be going with on Sisi atm.
At the very least:
- A choice between Sovwar and Facwar - a mutually exclusive choice - needs to be made. If you have sov and want to go FW, you lose your sov the moment you join the militia. No waiting period, no cooldown. Instantly. And while you're in FW, you cannot take sov either. Force people to choose.
- Higher standing requirements (≥2.5 or 3.0 at minimum) would also not go amiss. I mean, seriously. Anyone can get 0.5 standing to a faction for their corp. It's like a day or two of whoring L3s.
-
active RP alliances that would have factional loyalties would include:
Electus Matari
CVA
Ushra'Khan
I-Red
?
I can't think of any others offhand ? I suppose if CVA aren't interested, the Aegis Militia might come out of retirement or something, but it's still looking a bit thin on the ground ?
But, at this point in time, everyone's Rp'd and have gone in different directions, haven't they ?
Like the other RP groups like Rote Kapelle and that one that's the Anti-Sansha one, had SYNE in it. after this long, what RP motive is there ?
-
CCP events died, which hurt RP a lot.
There was no incentive for RP groups to fight, so the RPers that wanted to see things explode generally moved on to make things explode and relegate their RP to barpee.
Baised view: There's very little reason to RP an entire organization when that entire organization isn't working together towards a common goal, and most goals that require an organization to work towards involve making ships explode, and going back to the lack of ships to explode in RP environments, most RP organizations eventually thinned out as people left to find targets or the organizations dropped to RP lite or not RP at all to find ships to explode.
U'K and CVA are very much an exception to that, because they found a way to incorporate making ships explode into their RP and dragged it out over a long period of time fairly successfully. Though I think the RP in both has diminished somewhat over the years.
-
Yawn. Mechanic still boring, no pirate factions, etc., etc.
-
Why should alliances be able to play both camps?
A lot of us joined FW because we preferred lowsec and none of this 500-man supercap hotdropping nonsense. Being able to participate in both the Nullsec Game and the FW Game is just eh. One or the other, please.
-
I-RED can't join FW. We fight the Protectorate as it is yes, but joining the Gallente is out of the question. Joining the Protectorate would burn all the work we have done in Placid.
vOv so no change for us.
-
I'd be less *facedesk* if they showed any sign of actually balancing FW activities and NPCs. As is... yaaaay. More collossal blobs mindlessly grinding the easiest side's L4 missions for oodles of LP, because there is no other reason for anyone without an RP dedication to be doing anything else.
-
KEEP IN MIND
I don't like this move any more than many of you, but it may be important to look at this change as being one of many possible upcoming changes to the entire FW system.
In conjunction with unknown upcoming stuff, it may not be the disaster that it certainly looks like from here.
Just saying. 8)
-
KEEP IN MIND
I don't like this move any more than many of you, but it may be important to look at this change as being one of many possible upcoming changes to the entire FW system.
In conjunction with unknown upcoming stuff, it may not be the disaster that it certainly looks like from here.
Just saying. 8)
How the FUCK can you still show that kind of tentative optimism? You might be losing your :bittervet: edge :psyccp:
-
KEEP IN MIND
I don't like this move any more than many of you, but it may be important to look at this change as being one of many possible upcoming changes to the entire FW system.
In conjunction with unknown upcoming stuff, it may not be the disaster that it certainly looks like from here.
Just saying. 8)
How the FUCK can you still show that kind of tentative optimism? You might be losing your :bittervet: edge :psyccp:
Apparently the bittervet meter loops back around to zero when it gets too high. Y2CCP bug! \o/
-
KEEP IN MIND
I don't like this move any more than many of you, but it may be important to look at this change as being one of many possible upcoming changes to the entire FW system.
In conjunction with unknown upcoming stuff, it may not be the disaster that it certainly looks like from here.
Just saying. 8)
How the FUCK can you still show that kind of tentative optimism? You might be losing your :bittervet: edge :psyccp:
Apparently the bittervet meter loops back around to zero when it gets too high. Y2CCP bug! \o/
Confirming this is completely true.
-
KEEP IN MIND
I don't like this move any more than many of you, but it may be important to look at this change as being one of many possible upcoming changes to the entire FW system.
In conjunction with unknown upcoming stuff, it may not be the disaster that it certainly looks like from here.
Just saying. 8)
Yeah, that's what I'm desperately hoping for, in the end. Time will tell, I'm just not sure I'll be around when it does.
-
Called it a couple of days ago (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=604246#post604246).
Sad to be correct. :(
-
Well, you see, allowing alliances to take part in FW is a good thing. I just share the opinion that there should be the choice between holding Sov and fighting for an empire. And, obviously, allowing alliances in will in no way solve the main issues with FW. However, I don't think that all nullsec entities will magically join FW in one way or another.
But as Soundwave has said (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=612943#post612943) we're to expect more changes in the future.
-
Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into
-
Alliances in Faction Warfare is a good thing. More people, more conflict.
Now we need the ability for anti nationalist outfits to wardec "against" a militia and we're all set.
(yes I'd love to wardec the amarrian militia with Star Fraction and be wardecced against well everyone in it)
-
The end is nigh™
Honestly, make it so you need 2.5/3+ standings, and no sov, and I will be happier. I predict Caldari militia hitting 15k members after about a month.
-
More people, more conflict.
Maybe. but what is there for people to actually do in the FW systems ?
There's only a few dozen star systems, and they have 3 plexes spawning regularly throughout the day, in addition to the ones that appear by whatever weird mechanic it is that generates them. Plexes can be taken by a handful of players, some can be taken by One player.
The geography of some of areas, also means there are significant choke points. With more people, then those choke points will get camped more often, which then means bigger gangs are formed to take on those camps, and the inevitable spies on both sides mean a bigger counter-gang is formed, until people either give up or the gangs get big enough to attract the attention of one of the non-FW groups in the area with capital ships.
Camps also have an effect on the ability of people to do the FW missions. There are ofc ways around this, such as the <900k sp militia alt flying a rookieship that triggers the missions, for non-militia fleetmates to complete, risking Nothing to opposing militia, but for some people, this is not something they can or want to do, for whatever reasons.
The lack of things to do, boredom/frustration with large gangs that never get anywhere, and any frustration with making money while militiaing, will tend to turn people away, acting as a population control, leaving mission-farmers to populate the militias.
Needs more improvements beyond "more people".
What is there for a T1 frigate/destroyer/cruiser pilot of modest skills to do in FW ?
-
More people, more conflict.
Maybe. but what is there for people to actually do in the FW systems ?
There's only a few dozen star systems, and they have 3 plexes spawning regularly throughout the day, in addition to the ones that appear by whatever weird mechanic it is that generates them. Plexes can be taken by a handful of players, some can be taken by One player.
The geography of some of areas, also means there are significant choke points. With more people, then those choke points will get camped more often, which then means bigger gangs are formed to take on those camps, and the inevitable spies on both sides mean a bigger counter-gang is formed, until people either give up or the gangs get big enough to attract the attention of one of the non-FW groups in the area with capital ships.
This is especially in issue with the Amarr-Minmatar front, which has only two cross-regional border jumps between Amarr and Minmatar space - which are actually only 3 jumps apart on the Minmatar side and barely more on the Amarr. Both of these border jumps are also quite close to the preferred Amarr and Minmatar staging areas.
Hence, the back-and-forth "ship-up" game is quite common. Alternately, you can move further up into the distant regions of eithers' territory, but then you are cutting yourself off from the ability to reship if someone decides to come out with bigger / far more numerous ships.
Camps also have an effect on the ability of people to do the FW missions. There are ofc ways around this, such as the <900k sp militia alt flying a rookieship that triggers the missions, for non-militia fleetmates to complete, risking Nothing to opposing militia, but for some people, this is not something they can or want to do, for whatever reasons.
I -believe- but an not 100% sure that using a neutral character to draw aggro in FW plexes or missions so that an in-FW character can get to the objective is considered an exploit.
That aside, the inherent nature of FW missions (widely spread, high payout for a single mission, ability to pick up nearly a dozen missions at a go) is in itself not very condusive to engaging in combat. Why bother with that when you can speed off to another system to run a mission there and return later (or ignore it altogether; failing to complete FW missions still has no penalty).
What is there for a T1 frigate/destroyer/cruiser pilot of modest skills to do in FW ?
A very good question, espcially considering the Amarr militia FOTM is "OMGWTF Abaddons everywhere". It's a winning tactic - but it's very hard on the rookies.
Beyond this, I have another concern regarding FW: To paraphrase something I once told someone before regarding occupancy changes equalling planetary invasions, "I don't mind when CCP sets the fictional stakes high in our war. This is, after all, a dark universe. What I mind is when they do this, and then take control over those stakes completely out of my hands." I'll stand by that statement - it's a profoundly painful thing when you are told that your side has much to loose, and then are unable to prevent those losses by anything you do. Alliances in FW concern me because any alliance of sufficient size - "nullsec renter/minor bloc member" for lack of a better way to phrase it - can easily muster enough persons to deliver an unyielding thrust through any given militia's territory, and the militias as they stand couldn't do anything about it.
-
[mod]Removed nascent flame war. Kindly remember that whatever your opinions of them, disliking a certain style of play isn't a good enough reason to insult those people. Such insults also aren't a reason to start a flame war. Finally, don't respond to breaches of the rules, report them.[/mod]
-
I'm sorry, this is just one of my worst pet peeves in EVE and I desperately need to voice it.
FW corporations are NOT pirates.
FW corps are privateers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer).
There's a goddamn difference. They do a pirate's job, legally.
-
Alliances in Faction Warfare is a good thing. More people, more conflict.
Now we need the ability for anti nationalist outfits to wardec "against" a militia and we're all set.
(yes I'd love to wardec the amarrian militia with Star Fraction and be wardecced against well everyone in it)
I understand from a Star Fraction perspective that you'd prefer to oppose the worst of the expansionist statist pigdogs without having to nominally join up with a different set of statist pigdogs to do so. Do you see this as a high-enough-priority part of the picture to get CCP attention, though? I'm curious about how many other groups might want to benefit from it and what its unintended consequences might be. Dec all four militias for a constant stream of targets without losing access to any highsec yourself?
Actually, that sounds good to me: the key benefits of joining a militia without the key draw-backs. And that's why I really can't see it flying. :)
-
I'm sorry, this is just one of my worst pet peeves in EVE and I desperately need to voice it.
FW corporations are NOT pirates.
FW corps are privateers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer).
There's a goddamn difference. They do a pirate's job, legally.
Nitpicking; I'm not entirely sure any of these terms can apply to anyone in EVE. Piracy - attacking and commandeering vessels for the sake of material gain at the expense of the victim. In EVE, that would translate to forcing players to eject and stealing the ship/cargo, but in practical sense this nearly never happens - mostly it's ransoms, or destruction of ship for loot, in place of/despite ransom payment.
Privateering is merely the above with 'legal right' from one entity towards another.
IIRC a letter of marque allowed a privateer to pirate faction X on behalf of Y - in EVE, basic militia membership is as close to privateering as you get, but I do wonder if not the term sanctioned para-military force is closer. After all, the empires don't tell you to fight the other's merchant traffic, but to fight their militias. Do the terms pirate, privateer or even militia apply properly to FW? This may be a subject for another time and place.
/Nitpicking.
On a more on-topic subject, I'll say this again, in a simplified and 90% less rant-filled way, this time.
- Piracy has no proper counter and the play-style of opposing them is woefully lacking to the point of effectively not existing. This leads to no serious opposition in general and makes low-sec more boring because the only real counter to pirates are what eventually becomes pirates themselves, at the very least in game-play terms.
- The militias are not an effective counter because they too suffer under the same conditions as any non-militia anti-pies, this gives pirates an edge over any militia members concerned over their sec-rating and thier access to high-sec. The basic problem with low-sec persists.
- Alliances joining FW will eventually not fix any of FW's problems on their own and make the problem* of low-sec worse - quantity of people changes nothing in general, not the underlying issues with FW and not the low-sec problem, it merely boosts the quantity of actions; more militia people, more piracy etc. etc. There is also the concern of any 0.0 power-blocks leaving 0.0 for FW, joining whatever faction and severely unbalancing the entire thing. Far more than has already happened, at least.
*The low-sec 'problem' as such is the balance of people in it - if there were no way to pirate or aggressively engage with non-war targets things would be horribly stale and boring, as only null-sec would be a viable don't-need-a-dec-to-fight place to be. On the other hand, there is little to no reason NOT to pirate because in it's basic form 'piracy' - or merely aggressive, non-WT/sanctioned attacks - are a means to removing potential dangers to your self/corp/alliance. Anti-pies have a major problem; while perma-flashers are ever-legit targets its easy to tap-dance on the flashy-line or simply use alts or friends who are not flashy to stage ambushes, recon and logistical help to the perma-flashers. Pirates have the upper hand in pretty much every situation simply because the anti-pies limit themselves and practically offer openings for their foes to exploit. Thanks to the ability to use multiple characters and/or allied players who can access high-sec there really are no reason not to pirate in low-sec, much the same as NRDS is a very impractical, if noble and 'ehonor' idea in null - not so much in low-sec.
Several ideas have been offered in the past to try and fix this underlying issue or make it less severe, but it remains to be seen if CCP ever tackles this problem. In the meantime, FW will soon see alliances with the option of joining and it's extremely likely that this will reinforce the problem quite badly. well, from my point of view, at least.
In short, to clarify my stance; I'm not asking for or seeking the end of piracy or whatnot, I'd like there to be viable, functional options in low-sec to pirating. I don't care for piracy myself but that don't mean I've some kind of agenda vs pirate players or anything, I am not out to go all 'your doing it wrong' or disagree with the play-style. I simply want an alternative, and I'm disappointed that FW was a broken 'alternative' to it, especially now when it will likely stop functioning entirely.
-
- Piracy has no proper counter and the play-style of opposing them is woefully lacking to the point of effectively not existing. This leads to no serious opposition in general and makes low-sec more boring because the only real counter to pirates are what eventually becomes pirates themselves, at the very least in game-play terms.
Utter rubbish, all piracy requires as a counter is a dedicated, moderately sized and competent group. Who are willing to tackle it from many angles.
Granted, you're never going to clear Rancer, but regular 20-man BC fleets, good scouts and intel channels will go a long, long way towards making life difficult for local pirate groups. It's just no-one who knows anything about lowsec dynamics has bothered to tackle the issue on any meaningful scale in the last year.
Yes, low security space requires major changes, Yes well-established flashy groups have more targets and a 'defensive' advantage, but dedicated, competent groups are more than capable of tackling piracy on a local scale if they feel the need to.
-
active RP alliances that would have factional loyalties would include:
Electus Matari
CVA
Ushra'Khan
I-Red
?
U'K likely won't join any militia unless the Defiants come out of the woodwork and start one.
-
something that I saw a short time ago, was a militia drake, backed up by at least one neutral logistics ship, parked outside one of the opposing side's tutorial systems, engaging new players who had followed what it said in the tutorial, and used the letter of recommendation which bypasses the normal standings requirement, but only for new accounts.
that sort of thing, may become more common with more people in the militia, and that will tend to turn even more new players away from FW.
It is not the same as can baiting in the tutorial systems so is not petitionable, but is still :\
-
What Bloodbird means is, I think, that there's no real way to fight any group of people in lowsec without bleeding sec status and so, in some sense, becoming a pirate yourself?
-
What Bloodbird means is, I think, that there's no real way to fight any group of people in lowsec without bleeding sec status and so, in some sense, becoming a pirate yourself?
If you avoiding podding people, it is extremely easy to keep your security status above -2, especially if you're involved in any mid-high level PvE on a regular basis out of wormhole space.
-
CVA and U'K?
Not bloody likely.
-
Bloodbird, my corp and alliance are NRDS. One of our "things" is anti-piracy. We work alongside a coalition which is NRDS and anti-pirate.
If you'd like some ideas on how to make this playstyle work, there are people around who can share.
-
Bloodbird, my corp and alliance are NRDS. One of our "things" is anti-piracy. We work alongside a coalition which is NRDS and anti-pirate.
If you'd like some ideas on how to make this playstyle work, there are people around who can share.
If I end up getting back in EVE under any kind of constant activity, I'll take you up on this. I always did wonder how EM managed their vigilante job, because theory-crafting presents loads of issues to deal with, and not that many fixes.
As for the main topic, I've... said all there is to say from my p.o.w. Pretty much wait-and-see, now.
-
The war will shift when this takes place.
I personally know of 4 alliances who will jump aboard the TLF cause when this goes live. Most of them are prepping for it now.
Everything the Amarr have is already in the field, and has been for ages. :s No one is coming to back us up.
-
I personally know of 4 alliances who will jump aboard the TLF cause when this goes live. Most of them are prepping for it now.
You do? They are?
Who?
/me blinks in perplexed curiosity.
-
I want to know too :P I've heard nothing of people coming to join the Minmatar. We (TRA) were considering setting up an alliance with another militia corp though. Not sure if it will actually happen or not though.
-
because theory-crafting presents loads of issues to deal with, and not that many fixes.
Theorycrafting is quite often extremely flawed. Especially when you start talking tactics.
-
I want to know too :P I've heard nothing of people coming to join the Minmatar. We (TRA) were considering setting up an alliance with another militia corp though. Not sure if it will actually happen or not though.
I won't name names yet, as I could stil be wrong on a couple of them (I hope ;) ), but I'm hearing over intel channels: "See those guys? When Alliances in FW hits, they'll be in TLF, so just set them red now."
-
Bloodbird, my corp and alliance are NRDS. One of our "things" is anti-piracy. We work alongside a coalition which is NRDS and anti-pirate.
If you'd like some ideas on how to make this playstyle work, there are people around who can share.
If I end up getting back in EVE under any kind of constant activity, I'll take you up on this. I always did wonder how EM managed their vigilante job, because theory-crafting presents loads of issues to deal with, and not that many fixes.
As for the main topic, I've... said all there is to say from my p.o.w. Pretty much wait-and-see, now.
Its not that hard. When I was in Provi/CVA, it worked quite well. It just asks for a bit of motivation.
-
Its not that hard. When I was in Provi/CVA, it worked quite well. It just asks for a bit of motivation.
Using Providence as an example does rather side-step the whole question of how do you chase pirates without taking sec-hits and ending up looking like pirates though, which did seem to be a major part of BloodBird's despair.
-
Its not that hard. When I was in Provi/CVA, it worked quite well. It just asks for a bit of motivation.
Using Providence as an example does rather side-step the whole question of how do you chase pirates without taking sec-hits and ending up looking like pirates though, which did seem to be a major part of BloodBird's despair.
Especially when you consider that CVA's RoE was at times rather questionable.
-
The war will shift when this takes place.
I personally know of 4 alliances who will jump aboard the TLF cause when this goes live. Most of them are prepping for it now.
Everything the Amarr have is already in the field, and has been for ages. :s No one is coming to back us up.
I presume the current balance of power in FW to be precarious already, Alliances or no. It's based on a fairly limited number of die-hards. While the militias are responsible for just as many PvP kills as the major nullsec blocs, low-sec is still one of the least-populated areas. And only a fraction of current militia members participate in or care about plexing.
It's looking more and more like CCP will kick off a major iteration of FW soon, either this summer or in rolling updates over the next few months. When that happens, expect both an influx of new pilots as well as renewed involvement by a lot of existing pilots who see the current occupancy mechanics (justifiably) as pointless.
In short, it's anyone's guess as to what the map will look like in six months.