Backstage - OOC Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

That Electus Matari lost over 400 members at the start of its war with PIE Inc?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Alliances in FW  (Read 7161 times)

Morwen Lagann

  • Pretty Chewtoy
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3427
    • Lagging Behind
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #15 on: 05 Jan 2012, 21:10 »

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/
Logged
Lagging Behind

Morwen's Law:
1) The number of capsuleer women who are bisexual is greater than the number who are lesbian.
2) Most of the former group appear lesbian due to a lack of suitable male partners to go around.
3) The lack of suitable male partners can be summed up in most cases thusly: interested, worth the air they breathe, available; pick two.

Graelyn

  • Ye Olde One
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1349
  • These things just seem to happen...
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #16 on: 05 Jan 2012, 22:24 »

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.
Logged


If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

BloodBird

  • Intaki Still-Rager
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1635
  • The untraditional traditionalist
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #17 on: 06 Jan 2012, 02:43 »

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.
Logged

Myyona

  • Spilling beans
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 520
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #18 on: 06 Jan 2012, 03:36 »

Called it a couple of days ago.

Sad to be correct. :(
Logged
EVE Online Lorebook at eve-inspiracy.com

Desiderya

  • Guest
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #19 on: 06 Jan 2012, 06:25 »

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 we're to expect more changes in the future.
« Last Edit: 06 Jan 2012, 06:30 by Desiderya »
Logged

kalaratiri

  • Kalalalaakiota
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2107
  • Shes mad but shes magic, theres no lie in her fire
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #20 on: 06 Jan 2012, 07:00 »

Quote from: CCP Soundwave
Agreed. The capture mechanics are the second priority though, compared to the consequences of taking/losing space, which we're looking into
Logged


"Eve roleplayers scare me." - The Mittani

Jade Constantine

  • Anarchist Adventurer
  • Omelette
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 432
  • Nothing ever burns down by itself
    • The Star Fraction Communications Portal
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #21 on: 06 Jan 2012, 10:21 »

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)
Logged

There are some arenas so corrupt that the only clean acts possible are nihilistic

kalaratiri

  • Kalalalaakiota
  • The Mods
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2107
  • Shes mad but shes magic, theres no lie in her fire
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #22 on: 06 Jan 2012, 11:11 »

The end is nighâ„¢

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.
Logged


"Eve roleplayers scare me." - The Mittani

Louella Dougans

  • \o/
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2222
  • \o/
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #23 on: 06 Jan 2012, 14:29 »

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 ?
Logged
\o/

Esna Pitoojee

  • Keeper of the Harem
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2095
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #24 on: 06 Jan 2012, 16:36 »

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.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.
Logged
I like the implications of Gallentians being punched in the face by walking up to a Minmatar as they so freely use another person's culture as a fad.

Silver Night

  • Admin
  • Demigod
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2250
  • Elitist Oldtimer
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #25 on: 06 Jan 2012, 17:23 »

[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]

Senn Typhos

  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 944
  • Strong, Silent Type
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #26 on: 06 Jan 2012, 20:33 »

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 .

There's a goddamn difference. They do a pirate's job, legally.
Logged
An important reminder for Placid RPers

One day they woke me up
So I could live forever
It's such a shame the same
Will never happen to you

Matariki Rain

  • Sweet, gentle Mata
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 827
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #27 on: 06 Jan 2012, 20:37 »

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. :)
Logged

BloodBird

  • Intaki Still-Rager
  • Veteran
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1635
  • The untraditional traditionalist
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #28 on: 07 Jan 2012, 06:12 »

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 .

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.
Logged

Milo Caman

  • Guerilla Gardener
  • Pod Captain
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 618
    • Out of Sinq
Re: Alliances in FW
« Reply #29 on: 07 Jan 2012, 06:33 »

- 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.
« Last Edit: 07 Jan 2012, 06:35 by Milo Caman »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4