open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Live Dev Blog on Empyrean Age, Thursday 15 May, 20.00 to 21.00 GMT
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 : last (13)

Author Topic

Genevieve Bluecoat
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:05:00 - [331]
 

Well thanks a bunch CCP, thanks a bloody lot! Evil or Very Mad

I finally take my first steps into PvP in years, inspired by RP.

And what do you do? You effectively bar hundreds, if not thousands of RPers from taking any part in faction warfare.

The players that have championed EVE's depth and background and fiction, have fought your prototype FW in the Bleaklands and made the races come alive in many ways for so many people, excluded because of crappy design.

Well done. I might as well have kept to my carebearing, because Faction Warfare won't have any actual warfare without those RPers I signed on specifically to fight. Evil or Very Mad

5 years of building space in 0.0 in the name of RP, or of fighting constant wars that has brought many people to more aspects of EVE in Empire, and you couldn't even create a system that would allow them to take part because of how essential the stupid alliance system has become in order to function. Rolling Eyes

Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:07:00 - [332]
 

Edited by: Sapphrine on 15/05/2008 22:10:43
Originally by: Cailais

Then dont. Continue with your Alliance vs Alliance RP wars. I think it adds a whole new layer of complexity to the political situation: its an opportunity for MORE RP - not less.

I think what you really wanted a system whereby the 'RP Alliances' (CVA/Ushra'Khan) got given the top seat at the table: a system designed especially for you.

I dont doubt youve put a lot into the RP of EVE over the last few years - but that doesnt mean you are entitled to a reward of increased power/influence for doing so - or that 'your' RP had any more validity than anyone elses.

The choice was the system theyve chosen or you (RP corps) vs "Goons/Bob et al" who wouldnt give a monkeys about the RP but would have fueled the 'conquest' with massive .0 funding and cap blobs.

C.




I think you'll find we're really not just in this for the power. A number of alliances have had FW dangled in front of them that there was a reason to keep caring about the RP in game, that there would be a way that they could eventually affect the core game through their actions, that FW was this.... and now it isn't....

This isn't so much about U'K and CVA as about all the other alliance groups living in empire. They're the ones that are utterly left out from this. U'K, CVA and other 0.0 RP alliances can still fight it out in 0.0 which is something to fall back to but it doesn't remove the fact that something that was set to bring focus onto RP will actually exclude those that enjoy it.

It makes no sense.

edit for logic

Sapphrine
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:15:00 - [333]
 

Originally by: Cailais


Agreed. why not simply move your alliance players into ONE corp; problem solved no? OR if you absolutely MUST keep your individual corps create a 'alliance' chat channel - serves the same purpose.

C.




Because there's 4 years of established rp reason behind the alliance? because there are a lot of serious limitations to a corp instead of an alliance (standings ftl, wardecs ftl etc.)

This question makes me question your knowledge of RP alliances alot tbh. You're asking, 'why not just ignore your back story established over years'.

Arbelia Amarsa
Duchy of Amarsa
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:30:00 - [334]
 

I missed the dev chat, responses don't sound good so far Shocked but can't wait to listen to the tape and catch up. Well at least we have ambulation to look forward to for RPrs Very Happy

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:51:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Sapphrine
Originally by: Cailais


Agreed. why not simply move your alliance players into ONE corp; problem solved no? OR if you absolutely MUST keep your individual corps create a 'alliance' chat channel - serves the same purpose.

C.




Because there's 4 years of established rp reason behind the alliance? because there are a lot of serious limitations to a corp instead of an alliance (standings ftl, wardecs ftl etc.)

This question makes me question your knowledge of RP alliances alot tbh. You're asking, 'why not just ignore your back story established over years'.


A history is just that - a history. Why stop writing your story? Has Alliance RP stagnated to such a degree that you cant weave your RP around what is occuring right now rather than what you have done in the past?

Clearly we'll need more detail on how the war dec system will work under factional warfare but there might be other opportunities - i.e have you considered your Alliances might well be able to declare war vs corporations signed onto Militas? - or as this is a predominatly Low Sec War you can fight in it regardless? what about RP'd debates within the alliance? Perhaps fractures, arguments internally - disputes about the correct course of action?

Simply RP youre way into FW. Use your imagination - thats what its about.

C.



Tatsue Nuko
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.15 22:58:00 - [336]
 

Quote:
or as this is a predominatly Low Sec War you can fight in it regardless?


This is something I have mentioned several times in the previous thread about this:
If my corp sets up show ganking people in the FW areas to prevent them executing the war - but keeps our sec statuses reasonable - the FW people will be given nice lovely sec status hits for defending their empire.

Lovely, eh?

Tatsue Nuko
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.15 23:02:00 - [337]
 

Originally by: Cailais

A history is just that - a history. Why stop writing your story? Has Alliance RP stagnated to such a degree that you cant weave your RP around what is occuring right now rather than what you have done in the past?



Dude, the issue is that they HAVE to stop writing the story.

They have to scrap the alliance. It's gone. Poof. If Electus Matari wants in, it means Electus Matari is no more. That's not a case of stagnated RP, it's a case of forced disbanding.

It's akin to introducing a new space deployable and saying "you have to join either BoB, Goons or Morsus Mihi to be allowed to use this".

Necromancy Black
Posted - 2008.05.15 23:28:00 - [338]
 

Edited by: Necromancy Black on 15/05/2008 23:31:32
After listerning to the mp3 (thanks for that upload!) I see they have sound reason to not include alliances. It's simply not what they tried to do with this and as they said, it breaks the gameplay and game design they're working for.

What's more had this been introduced when Eve first come out origanally I still see them not allowing any alliances or corps in them to join a faction.

What I like heearing is that if you join a faction and go into enemy highsec their faction navy is going to go after you and chase you off. So while you can take FW to high sec it's going to be very hard. So this keeps the FW in low sec.

What they are trying to do is not reinvent PvP and bring the life back to 0.0, but move people out of high sec and into low sec and introduce them all to good PvP. This is going to get more people in PvP.

I don't see why you should be complaining, as once this is over there will be more people with a taist for PvP then before. No amount of anything done to alliances and 0.0 space will pull the players and carebears out of high sec and into PvP, instead CPP are introducing PvP to were the carebears are without throwing them completely into the deep end.

Besides, there's a long way too go yet, they don't sound anywhere near ready enough to release.

EDIT::Want new cruisers now! Very Happy

Andres Talas
Posted - 2008.05.15 23:41:00 - [339]
 

Edited by: Andres Talas on 15/05/2008 23:47:16
Originally by: Necromancy Black
instead CPP are introducing PvP to were the carebears are without throwing them completely into the deep end.



Have to run gate camps to get there. Check.

Have to play against bored 0.0 mercs. Check.

Have to deal with random gankage in losec. Check.

Have to accept the risk of my main getting ganked by a combo of probing alt and logonski/logoffski stealth bomber in mission running system. Check.

So, whats this 'without chucking them in the deep end' ?


PS And if you're a Dev, talk to Hardin. Talk to the Chin with the Spin.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.05.16 00:00:00 - [340]
 

Originally by: Tatsue Nuko
Originally by: Cailais

A history is just that - a history. Why stop writing your story? Has Alliance RP stagnated to such a degree that you cant weave your RP around what is occuring right now rather than what you have done in the past?



Dude, the issue is that they HAVE to stop writing the story.

They have to scrap the alliance. It's gone. Poof. If Electus Matari wants in, it means Electus Matari is no more. That's not a case of stagnated RP, it's a case of forced disbanding.

It's akin to introducing a new space deployable and saying "you have to join either BoB, Goons or Morsus Mihi to be allowed to use this".


Its the end of the story for that Alliance - are role players not supposed to be living the story of their characters?? Also we can turn your last comment around -

It's akin to introducing a new space deployable and saying "you cant join either BoB, Goons or Morsus Mihi and be allowed to use this". Which is rather the point.

C.


Arbelia Amarsa
Duchy of Amarsa
Posted - 2008.05.16 00:50:00 - [341]
 

Well i see no reason why RP stories can't continue despite the in game changes. Roleplayers have always had to adapt in the game and improvise, so I am sure RP after this expansion can evolve into something just as fun as previous, its all in your attitude and imagination after all....its a game. None of this matters in 20 years, have fun with it NOW.

Tatsue Nuko
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.16 01:02:00 - [342]
 

No Cailais, it's not. RPers have had the "Faction Warfare is coming" bait held to them for years now, and in the mean time they build up the organizations that we see now.

...then it comes and they're told "well all those things are nice and all but you'll have to disband if you want FW". It's just not kosher. And it also doesn't make sense RPwise:

- So why did you disband Electus Matari then, Eva?
- Because we wanted to fight for the Republic.
- Wha? But weren't you doing that before?
- Well yeah, but...
- So why didn't you continue with that?
- Well ehm, because the Republic wouldn't let us help them with the war unless we disbanded.

Similarly for CVA. They're the big fighters for the Empire, yet the empire would actually prohibit them from helping out when the empire ends up being at war? The ****?

Nicholas DW
Invicta.
Posted - 2008.05.16 01:26:00 - [343]
 

So yeah, since I'm not allowed in faction warfare, when`s the next patch coming out with some content for the vast number of players excluded from the content in this patch (if you can call faction warfare "content")?

When`s the damp/tracking disruptor fix? When`s the Eris getting boosted? When are AFs getting a role?

Also, lol at the idea of a faction Exequror, people don't even fly the regular version, but I guess it`s better then another pre-nerfed damp boat.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.16 05:37:00 - [344]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Tatsue Nuko
Originally by: Cailais


It's akin to introducing a new space deployable and saying "you cant join either BoB, Goons or Morsus Mihi and be allowed to use this". Which is rather the point.

C.




No the real story here is they come out with a mechanic that says "you cant join either BoB, Goons or Morsus Mihi and be allowed to use this.. .. .. But feel free to join FactionwarfareBoB, Factionwarfare goons or FactionWarfare Morsus Mihi who are not OFFICIALY part of the aliances named for them, but they defacto are anyway.

Sanche Tehkeli
Gallente
Bionesis Technologies
Electus Matari
Posted - 2008.05.16 08:43:00 - [345]
 

Hi,

I am a bit dissapointed and i share concerns of those in RP alliances who have always been blowing life in the game IMHO. Being in a no-alliance corp we thought to join an alliance for the upcoming WF before those devblogs...

But there are certainly ideas and things to make it possible for RP alliances to get involved. With quick thoughts :


No entity claiming or having claimed sovereignty for the past x days (and no character belonging to such an entity) should join FW.

Given an Alliance may be considered as a Power (minor or major) I understand Factions and their intricated politics underway would not totally support Alliance involvement into FW. I think of U'K or EM for the little I know (hi guys) they have different visions for the Minmatar people, split ways when it comes to deal with some Republic Officials. Those officials would not grant a total clearance to an Alliance challenging their views.

Why not introduce caped Alliance Standings upon Corporation standings toward Factions, with fees or charters or rights to sign up for FW for periods of time. The higher standing, the lesser fee.

Opportunity to sign up for FW for those Alliances should be restricted, it should be submitted to vote (as for Corp involvement.)


I am sure there are existing mechanics to be used or new ones to add for this matter to be resolved.

-- Sanche Tehkeli
Bionesis Technologies Security Director

CetusOfAsuran
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.05.16 08:54:00 - [346]
 

Originally by: KrazyTaco
I'm not going to spend time writing a transcript, but I made a recording you can all download and listen to if you'd like.

Download Here


Any body still got this about missed the blog myself and the link seems broken now?

Andres Talas
Posted - 2008.05.16 11:57:00 - [347]
 

Originally by: Sanche Tehkeli

No entity claiming or having claimed sovereignty for the past x days (and no character belonging to such an entity) should join FW.

-- Sanche Tehkeli
Bionesis Technologies Security Director


No. FW without CVA would ... be like factional warfare without CVA. It's inconceivable.

And don't forget, U'K tried for Sov in Providence as well. Just because they failed doesnt mean they weren't fighting the good fight.

Finally, if you're a dev, you have a problem, talk to Hardin. Talk to the Chin with the Spin.

Marta Shrite
Posted - 2008.05.16 13:26:00 - [348]
 

How about - Alliances can hold 0.0 in the name of their chosen faction, and can invite FW through the gate?

AlexeiShtukov
Posted - 2008.05.16 15:42:00 - [349]
 

Does anyone my chance have a link to a recording of the blog? I missed the live one and canít wait to hear what was discussed.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.16 16:12:00 - [350]
 

Originally by: Andres Talas
Originally by: Sanche Tehkeli





Finally, if you're a dev, you have a problem, talk to Hardin. Talk to the Chin with the Spin.


no the Devs dont have a problem

they play EVE to, and we all know what aliance has the bulk of the players

Their clearly hoping FW disrupts the other aliances more than theirs from all the "im bored with 0.0 lets go Faction Waring!" people who move from the aliance to the FW psudo aliance.


Atari Snr
Posted - 2008.05.16 16:27:00 - [351]
 

Originally by: AlexeiShtukov
Does anyone my chance have a link to a recording of the blog? I missed the live one and canít wait to hear what was discussed.



can be found on page 11

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.16 16:29:00 - [352]
 

Originally by: Marta Shrite
How about - Alliances can hold 0.0 in the name of their chosen faction, and can invite FW through the gate?
Actualy this makes more sence

Since the Big aliances cant participate directly , they can go into FW space and shut down access to anyone not in the faction they are indirectly suporting, and ultimatly render FW pointless for thoes not in the big Faction aliances!

See? the player base will always come up with a solution to any dumb design decisions made by the developers!

Thunderflash
Kessel Moria Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.16 16:44:00 - [353]
 

Has the audio recourding of the live Dev Blog been posted, couldn't be there live.

Thanks

Sean Drake
Caldari
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2008.05.16 18:23:00 - [354]
 

Edited by: Sean Drake on 16/05/2008 18:23:04
Hmm anyone else think that pirate corps are sat somewhere thinking "were going to need a bigger kill board" there's a good chance that a corp like Burn Eden could kill all participation in a battleground in a couple of weeks on there own if they so choose.

Not to mention the swarms of lesser pirates/greifers which are going to be atrracted by the blood in the water i'm thinking unless there's somthing they have not mentioned ccp could end up acheiving the exact opposite of the goals and find another way of putting off new players from trying PvP.

Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2008.05.16 20:24:00 - [355]
 

Please please please keep alliances out of faction warfare. The last thing we need is some giant alliances bowling over a warzone and just camping/farming the heck out of the zones.

insidion
Caldari
Octavian Vanguard
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:20:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: Farrellus Cameron
Please please please keep alliances out of faction warfare. The last thing we need is some giant alliances bowling over a warzone and just camping/farming the heck out of the zones.


This somehow already isn't a problem? As people have suggested, they can already do this in a myriad of ways. With the existing proposal, you're going to force people to choose between either FW or typical alliance goals, which to me makes no sense as it will cause people to leave their existing alliance or just set up an alt to bypass the 'rules' anyways. It would seem to be reasonable to assume that the alliance in question could not hold both FW and 0.0 space, and it also stands to reason that there are existing alliances that have nothing to do with 0.0 that would want to go this direction. Even if 'super alliance A' were to join in FW, you KNOW that their long time enemies, 'super alliance B' will just join the opposing alliance just to fight them anyways.

This solution does not 'bridge the gap' between anything at this point, it's just a further exclusionary measure that makes the universe of eve seem smaller rather than adding even more depth (at long last).

Major Death
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:49:00 - [357]
 

Quote:
The last thing we need is some giant alliances bowling over a warzone and just camping/farming the heck out of the zones.


There are many corporations with 1K+ players that could do the samething, all within the current rules.

floater666
Posted - 2008.05.16 21:58:00 - [358]
 

Edited by: floater666 on 16/05/2008 22:06:26

Wouldn't it be in one's right mind the first priority to make THE EXISTING GAME PLAYABLE instead of useless redundant "features":

Currently:

1. Gameplay mechanics is geared towards blobbing each other -> That makes pvp unplayable 1 screen/sec "pure enjoyment" <- Eve was supposed to be a PVP MMORPG.
Oh wait any fleet battle is uplayable lagfest, where metagaming: How to win in lag is favoured instead of EVE "gameplay".

2. The game mechaics forces us to use a scout or two every time -> Double, tripple boxing, multimonitoring is just bugfest, crashfest: White screen, video corruption, crash anyone?

3. War dec is just pure ridicolous when pretty much every corp can evade it for FREE (not classed as exploit) though declaring it is NOT FREE.

4. Bounty system is still broken since inception, but who cares: When you can never kill someone who has a half brain at least. The game deviated from the original PVP roots to a carebear sandbox. One can still join a 0.0 alliace, the last resort for PVP but that leads to ->1.

Necromancy Black
Posted - 2008.05.16 22:38:00 - [359]
 

Edited by: Necromancy Black on 16/05/2008 22:38:44
So what people are saying is that you can't RP into FW?

You can't change the way your corps run together as an alliance, you can't all move terriroty into where the FW is. You can't change, so the game design of FW must? Which would make it alot less fun if it was gear towards the RP alliances then they way it is now (quite honestly, I'm really excited for this).

Go read the second post on this page: Best point made!

FW is empire fighting (currently), and you RP alliances simply hold terriroty outside of the empires with direct approval from any of them. So why should you suddenly be invited in as you are, instead of being told to obey the direct order's and laws of the Empires?

RP wise, the way CPP have gone makes sense. But then, RP is however you want to see it, so it's not an argument with any clear outcome.

Nekopyat
Posted - 2008.05.16 23:19:00 - [360]
 

Originally by: Necromancy Black

Go read the second post on this page: Best point made!


Agreed that did seem like an exelent post and was along the lines of what I was thinking reading all this.
Governments often 'backstab' paramilitaries that feel they are entitled to goverment sanction after fighting on thier own without a mandate.


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 : last (13)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only