Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 17:21:00 -
[31]
Not supported.
First, we dont wanna big alliances in FW. Second: Worst thing in FW. The "neutrals" who just interfere the real FW soldiers.
Neutral wardeck for a FW corp, this is ridiculous. If want to shot in FW go and join to militia.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 23:32:00 -
[32]
While I like the idea (and agree with Evanda's post about supporting anything that would give us shooting rights against the largest block of 'Amarrian loyalists' in the game, I agree with Micia and Rodj's concerns about this implementation. That is, avoiding war with your chosen enemy's partner is a very strong advantage (both militarily and economically), and lacking automatic standings of some sort with the (quasi-)friendly militia is a recipe for organizational disaster.
The second problem could be ignored, but at the very least, I think it would be reasonable to assume that when a pod-pilot alliance (which in game-world terms represents a significant hostile force) declares war on an empire, that empire's ally would join in its defense.
Conceptually, though, I support this. But given CCP's total lack of anything resembling interest in including RP alliances in the war (which is either completely off the table or soon(tm) to be worked on depending on which dev is answering), I don't see them paying any more attention to this.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 15:52:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Nur AlHuda
NOT SUPPORTED.
Its like regular war and the attacking faction doesnt risk faction hit.
That means they would be able to move trough highsec attacking any war targets around and would be not restricted as minmatar miltia is.
Its like Privateers would demand to lower they wardeclaration fees so they would have more war targets to shoot.
If someones wants wardec he should pay for it and dont ask for game changes. Or create an expeditionary corporation that would join a militia.
Fair enough, you don't support it. But you're misrepresenting the concept quite a bit.
First, the 'against' force can suffer faction hits if necessary. That's a balancing decision for CCP. I neither rule them out nor recommend them because I leave that to CCP to decide in terms of the weighting of it.
Second, the 'against' force can't just roam around the high-sec of the chosen enemy at will. The restriction on them is as much as is on the Minmatar militia in the high-sec of the empire they have chosen to oppose. I say this clearly.
This is not just a mass war declaration in disguise.
Further, the barriers to entry can be financial as well as standings if CCP deems it necessary. I don't rule it out or recommend it one way or the other. For reasons the same as I explain above. Please don't interpret silence on a particular point as one thing or the other.
Now, others complain about 'neutrals' in FW. Well, plenty of militia corps constantly complain about the issue but as long as standard war decs remain possible (and despite the complaints, they always will unless CCP want to totally break faith with the rest of the EVE player base and insulate FW completely) it won't go away.
Some say that the element of the ally power not being hostile (ie. its forces not being war targets and its space being unrestricted by NPCs, etc) is a problem.
Well, that can be looked at as a single element of the proposal by CCP in consideration of balance. There are pros and cons. The intention at root is to limit the scope of the 'against' declaration. It forces a third force to choose. If you allow the ally power to be effective both through NPCs and its militia pilots then you also, I would submit, in all fairness have to allow the third force to be effective against its facilities (ie. plexes).
The question there is whether that broad an 'against' entry is actually desirable. That means any balancing in terms of standings, ISK commitment, declaration periods, cool-downs and so forth, that CCP introduce are fairly moot when it comes to the third force being able to rapidly switch its focus to operations against the other power. I do leave that up to CCP when it comes down to it but I think it removes some of the overall attractiveness of the concept in both design and RP terms.
Incidentally, a further point with regard to Rodj's question as to why anyone would want to be in the militias with this option on the table. Well, I did answer it and I think satisfactorily but CCP's latest proposals on rewards add to my answer even more so.
Third-forces (that is 'against' FW participants) would not be eligible for LPs or other rewards that full militia members would be eligible for. An important element of making basic militia membership attractive while the 'against' option remains useful for mercenaries, freebooters, alliances, etc.
Incidentally, I do realise that a basic philsophical difference exists between me and those who think FW is merely transitional play and can't be an end in itself. In my view, that notion is anti-EVE. I think it is why FW is regarded with disdain by many. If FW is to be a valid endgame option (which it should be like any other gameplay in EVE) then wider participation and more options for participation are important.
I can only claim my interest is primarily in the health of FW and not my own narrow interests. I say it pro forma for the record as it's been raised.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Radon Kadar
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 17:00:00 -
[34]
Hi Cosmo,
I like the general idea but I do not like the restrictions on who can shoot at what ship that stays in place. I hate the current mechanic where a FW fleet is roaming consisting of players from several corporations and only some of these are decked.
If we allow these third parties into the conflict then they should become valid targets to other third parties whenever there is a fight going on.
I thus do not support your suggestion as it currently stands.
How about the following:
If your corporation or alliance has wardecced a FW faction:
In enemy High Sec: - Faction navy of wardecced faction will attack you on entering system - When you aggress an enemy faction pilot you will go flashy. (Any pilot from any corp/alliance can now shoot you without a sec-hit or gate guns) - You get gate guns - You do not get a concord sec hit for attacking enemy faction pilot. In enemy low sec: - When you aggress an enemy faction pilot you will go flashy. (Any pilot from any corp/alliance can now shoot you without a sec-hit or gate guns) - You get gate guns - You do not get a sec hit. In neutral low sec: - When you aggress an enemy faction pilot you will go flashy. (Any pilot can not shoot you without a sec-hit or gate guns. - You do not get gate guns on you. - You do not get a sec hit.
|
The Cosmopolite
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 17:36:00 -
[35]
I don't support gate gun fire (automatic or otherwise) on people who are in a CONCORD war/FW war type state with respect to others.
Gate guns are not intended to give people home advantage (especially not in low-sec but not in high-sec either, in my view). That's what the NPCs that spawn in high-sec against enemy pilots are for.
I also don't see why 'any pilot from any corp/alliance can now shoot you without a sec-hit or gate guns' is a valid or balanced suggestion to make about people who are engaged in a CONCORD/FW-type war in any type of space.
Your proposals amount to almost totally removing the point of a CONCORD/FW war state.
The effect in practice of this would be counter to the whole point of my proposal.
Thanks for the input but I'll stick with the basic principles of my proposal.
Cosmo
The Star Fraction Communications Portal |
Radon Kadar
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 18:09:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Radon Kadar on 28/07/2009 18:15:40
Originally by: The Cosmopolite I don't support gate gun fire (automatic or otherwise) on people who are in a CONCORD war/FW war type state with respect to others.
Gate guns are not intended to give people home advantage (especially not in low-sec but not in high-sec either, in my view). That's what the NPCs that spawn in high-sec against enemy pilots are for.
This is debatable from my point of view but I though it would be nice to make low-sec system captures mean something real.
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
I also don't see why 'any pilot from any corp/alliance can now shoot you without a sec-hit or gate guns' is a valid or balanced suggestion to make about people who are engaged in a CONCORD/FW-type war in any type of space.
That aggression rule is not ideal especially in highly populates systems, but without it one would always be better off in third party corp then in a real militia since the militia ships will be primary in mixed engagements:
Example:
'Team Gallente:' "anti-caldari corps" 5 ships "gallente militia" 5 ships
'Team Caldari' "anti-gallente corps" 5 ships "caldari militia" 5 ships
Since the anti corporations can not shoot at each-other since they are not at war the militia ships on both teams will be called primary until all the FW ships are down.
|
SuiJuris
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 18:33:00 -
[37]
DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTED
I have read quite a bit of the thread, and someone else mentioned this, but I see no real downside for being a third party participant.
Breakdown, Benefits Militia you are declaring against has to worry about 2 opposiing Militias+any third party forces,
You have to worry about the militia you are declaring against.
So right off, Militia members have to worry about 2 parties + all third party participants and all the third party participants only have to worry about 1 opposing force.
There is absolutely no reason for a corp to join the militia when it can limit the amount of people that can legally shoot it simply by going with the third party route. I don't think any standing hurdle would justify this.
--- It's like my mom always said... "I knew I should of drowned that one." |
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 01:13:00 -
[38]
Originally by: SuiJuris DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTED
I have read quite a bit of the thread, and someone else mentioned this, but I see no real downside for being a third party participant.
You don't play FW do you?
Reading won't help you much, sign up and join a few fleets that are mixed with anti-militia cherry picked wardecs.
Of the 2 FW forces you're fighting you only see 1 on a regular basis, 2nd force is on other side of empire. Regardless, the more you see the better, more kills. There is zero reason to try to "avoid" the wardecs as the wardecs are the whole aim of joining FW.
We want more wardecs not less.... or the ability to actually return fire on those who attack our fleets.
Currently if you join FW you already have to worry about the 3rd forces, because they kill half your gang (without you being able to return fire) and leave you alone to be killed by the militia.
1. You already have to worry about all the forces even if your corp doesn't have wardec. 2. The 3rd party is already at a *massive* advantage in the current setup of "you can't attack them".
|
Kletus Snoe
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 12:31:00 -
[39]
Sorry posting this on an ALT..
This is a bad idea becuase it changes the fundimental idea of FW in the wrong way. FW was, from my understanding, supposed to be a way to give a stepping stone for PVE players to move more into PVP. By doing this you have moved the whole concept of FW into the same basic concept as 0.0 space.
FW is not complete and we all know it, it needs help but this is not the way. Find a way to make capturing a system mean something, that would be more help to FW. Give FW pilots points for plexes captured, missions run and FW targets killed and let them spend those points on special items like faction ships and weapons, ie reward them for the war effort. That would help FW a lot.
I would now take this thread a different way, I think we should LIMIT wear decing on FW corps not expand it. FW is in some ways about RP. This means that the focus should be on attacking the enemy not dealing with any petty bunch of bullies that want to get their jollies shooting some new to PVP pilots.
To this same end I think an effort should be made to limit the corporations allowed to participate in FW. A faction standing is all well and good but the mechanic is to easy for pirate corps that want to bully noobs to get aroudn it and use this as a fresh hunting ground.
Cosmo I have spoken with you often in the past with a few different characters and I respect you so do not take this wrong but this proposal is doing nothing but putting more bullies with clubs amongst the baby seals.
To fix FW you need to fix the system so the focus is the FW and not the various side aspects. Give the players a reason to fight for their faction not give more players easy targets. Keep the alliances out of FW. If they want to take part in the FW mechanice they can start a sister corp that allows their members entry and give them allied access to their alliance.
I mean the entire idea reaks of destroying the concept of FW when you think of it. Using SF as the example, they want to kill Amarr supporters. Great then run out into 0.0 space and take on CVA, but in faction war these supporters are SUPPOSED to be supported directly by the various factions. Would the Amarr really let a petty bunch of pilots run muck over their people? If you want to bew in FW then BE IN IT, not playing on the edge. Pick a faction and make a stand, not pick and choose which targets get you the best publicity at the time.
So as someone that has played both sides of the Amarr/Matar war, no I was never a spy and yes I was in two different characters at different times. I can tell you that I see no benefit in this proposal for the concept of FW. In fact I would go so far as to say if this was adopted I would never play FW since if I wanted that level of action I could go to 0.0 space and things would be celaer of who my enemies where.
The FW concept as it stands is solid, it just needs fleshing out and some moree control added. Do not alter it into another version of 0.0
|
SuiJuris
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 15:34:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
Originally by: SuiJuris DEFINITELY NOT SUPPORTED
I have read quite a bit of the thread, and someone else mentioned this, but I see no real downside for being a third party participant.
You don't play FW do you?
Check the Amarr Militia killboards bud. --- It's like my mom always said... "I knew I should of drowned that one." |
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 01:04:00 -
[41]
Originally by: SuiJuris
So right off, Militia members have to worry about 2 parties + all third party participants and all the third party participants only have to worry about 1 opposing force.
There is absolutely no reason for a corp to join the militia when it can limit the amount of people that can legally shoot it simply by going with the third party route.
Well..... You were describing what would happen if there were more wardecs, but really, that is a description of the current reality.
In the current situation the 3rd forces only have to worry about 1 target, while the FW need to worry about all 3rd forces.
The less wardecs rather then more wardecs approach could work, but surely there is a balance that doesn't involve locking 3rd forces out.
As for alliances, the sister corp setup doesn't work all that well. It becomes a hassle when you need those pilots for defence of a wardec'd parent corp. In certain situations it becomes necessary to transfer all pilots from one corp to another to get around the games limitations. Kinda defeats the purpose of the corps even being related in the first place. An alliance wrapping these very much related corporations would make the whole setup a lot easier to manage while opening up options for greater industrial support of FW.
|
Tri Vetra
Rifters
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:14:00 -
[42]
I'm so supporting this.
|
Veshta Yoshida
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 10:18:00 -
[43]
It would be so heavily skewed towards large alliances/corporations looking for some relaxation from null-sec boredom and FW as a RP vehicle and proxy war of Empires would die within weeks. It would be replaced with 0.0 entities being able to fight amongst themselves without risking their assets/sovereignty, which is not desirable for anyone.
Militia wars have historically always been low-intensity affairs, sporadic and messy. Militia's have historically very rarely received overt assistance from "interested" 3rd parties, usually been limited to hush-hush training, funding and materials. This is the way things are now if you think about it.
If 3rd parties were to be allowed, the following must/should be in place for it to have any chance of not obsoleting the militia's as a whole:
- Declaring war on a militia invariably includes war on its ally (Minmatar/Gallente, Amarr/Caldari), if not then the alliance idea is pretty pointless. Includes persona non grata status in both Empires.
- Without direct affiliation with a militia (ie. actually joining), capturing complexes should be impossible.
- Standings hit towards the Empires upon destroying ships allied with them, be it NPCs or Players.
Declaring war on an Empire, even if indirectly, should have huge repercussions. No player alliance would condone aggression against its assets or those of their allies either. And what would such a declaration cost when the Empire's populations number in the trillions?
If you can capture space in the name of a militia/Empire without being in militia then what is the point of having the militia's in the first place?
Standings hit is to minimize/discourage the null-sec vacation war declaration which WILL come to pass were they allowed to. Will have to be rather large to have any effect.
Bottom line is that FW does not lend itself well to 3rd party involvement without destroying the whole concept. It would rapidly degenerate into non-FW related feuding an Eve themed BattleGround basically.
I would love for especially RP alliances like SF, U'K, EM, CVA et al. to be able to participate more directly, but I just don't see how it can be done without completely undermining the concept in itself.
|
Foolish Bob
Caldari FireTech In Tea We Trust
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 11:38:00 -
[44]
Interesting, but there are a few critical flaws for me atm.
- Being able to capture plex - an alliance that wishes to support the milita should support them - not do their job for them
- No wardec from opposite third parties or allied empires - this makes no sense from an rp pov. After all, the first world war started because of a wardec cascade, after some serbian guy called some austro-hungarian guy a noob in front of his haxxor buddies or something. Putting this condition in, whether intentionally or not, basically asks for participation in FW-lite.
on the other hand do I think there should be a mechanism whereby an alliance can declare to be part of an empire, with all the rights and responsibilities therein, but what you have atm is the rights without the responsibilities. No support yet. ----------- I am me. I am not the corp I've joined nor the alliance I fly in.
I'm also not a unique and special snowflake.
Everything I say should be taken in that context. |
Neu Bastian
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 19:00:00 -
[45]
Originally by: BattleStar Crusader I can see the benefits to your organistation Cosmo but to the militia it would not seem as benficial to give you access to 2000+ wartargets and not have any downsides.
I can arleady tell the way this thread is going so i do not wish to start a troll, or any little bikering arugments with snipes and not so whity retorts.
But all im seeing while i read and think upon this is the amarr militia saying no and the minmitar militia saying YES YES YES.
So i regret to say i do NOT SUPPORT this idea. On your side of the fence this idea is actually pretty good and well thought out but on the other side its actually insulting the intellegence of alot of people.
Can you imagine what the CVA people could do for your side of the war BSC??
I support this idea, or any other allowing alliances to join, with certain downsides or restrictions of course. It'd be interesting to see who joins on which sides.
Drop in LP for capturing plexes while you're at it.
Quote:
Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
|
Neu Bastian
Minmatar Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 19:07:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Neu Bastian on 02/10/2009 19:08:09
Originally by: Kletus Snoe
This is a bad idea becuase it changes the fundimental idea of FW in the wrong way. FW was, from my understanding, supposed to be a way to give a stepping stone for PVE players to move more into PVP. By doing this you have moved the whole concept of FW into the same basic concept as 0.0 space.
The fundamental differences with 0.0 and large scales empire wars, be it FW or privateer stile massive wardecs, have nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with the things you can use/do in 0.0 that you can't in empire:
-Interdiction Bubbles. -Doomsday Devices. -Bomb deployment. -Cyno Jamming/Generating. -Jump bridges. -Sov4's invulnerable Poses. -Effective sniper fleets(bubbles are a must to keep enemy pinned).
Quote:
Neu Bastian Valklear Guard - CEO
|
fire elf
Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 19:48:00 -
[47]
I like this Idea, Will give teh Players more knowlegde of how the Big Alliances role..
AMARR VICTORY !
|
Syekuda
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 03:23:00 -
[48]
To the Op: do your work on politics cause you really need it. Sorry to be insulting you but this wont work and doesn't make sense.
If you attack Amarr do you really think Caldari will stay on the side without any rights to intervene. WTF ? Believe me, the emperor and the people around him will say "Were allies to Caldari, order them to help us now!". Maybe not like that but Caldari wont be able to stay on the side they can't.
Of course there's other major downside to your idea like the way 1 faction could be overwhelmed with wartargets. I call that legal griefing. Maybe your just giving that idea to tip the side of the battle away from one faction for all I know. Who knows!
not supported at all.
Alliances should really stay out of FW. If they get inside FW, its going to be hell.
|
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.17 19:07:00 -
[49]
Any change that would allow anyone in New Eden to participate in their civil right to defend the freedom of their brethren should be explored and encouraged.
|
Bomberlocks
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.11.18 12:59:00 -
[50]
I support this. The one problem I can see, though, is that this has the potential to draw large alliances out of nullsec into the FW arena along with all the problems that nullsec warfare entails (massive blobfests of hundreds if not thousands of ships, capital heavy fleets, lag, even more epeening than is currently the case etc).
I agree that the lag problem must certainly be fixed first.
|
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:54:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Cearain on 20/11/2009 16:56:45 I agree the current mechanic where Faction war pilots have to watch fleetmates die while thrid parties attack certain members of certain corps out of their fleet, needs fixing. But the op suggestion is a very slanted way to fix it.
I would be more inclined to vote for something like one of two different solutions:
1) You can't war dec faction war corps. Its a very simple solutution and easy to implement. Faction war corps can't join alliances therefore can't hold sov and have various other limitations like standings requirements that you would like to avoid but fw corps have to swallow. Perhaps this is a decent balance. Not really sure.
An alternate
2) If you war dec a fw corp then you war dec *everyone*. In effect you stand in the shoes of the militia you are fighting for. So if you wardec amarr you also are in it against Caldari *and* any other thrid party entities that have decced *either* minmatar or gallente. If it were like this you would still be able to be in an alliance and have no standing requirements that fw corps suffer from. Accordinly the FW corps alone should get the lp bonuses and the ability to do plexes and fw proper things etc. If you are third party war deccer you can stay in your alliance but you do not get the fw proper benefits. A potential problem with this is O.O alliances may just completely overwhelm fw. I don't know. But at least it has some semblence of ballance.
The problem with the op solution is you may be in a big enough alliance where you can be pretty sure you can bring enough forces to dominate a single fw militia. You may be able to bring your 0.0 resources such as cap ships in order to camp their HQ preventing their t1 ships from getting any pew pew. While it might sound like fun for some I think it pretty much sucks so I vote against it. If you want to get in fw for the pew pew with out getting in fw....well at least offer something that isn't so slanted. At least make your proposal such that you need to deal with the same number of conflicts those in FW have to deal with.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 18:06:00 -
[52]
Not supported primarily for the reason that in a mixed fleet, (lets give minmatar and third party) will be split on who can engage what when caldari come to join in. Splitting up the militia forces is bad.
The CSM meeting notes have CCP saying they will allow alliances in that do not hold any 0.0 sov. Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |