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]

Author Topic

Tatsue Nuko
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.05.17 00:43:00 - [361]
 

Edited by: Tatsue Nuko on 17/05/2008 00:53:53
Originally by: Necromancy Black
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?


(My underscore)

Please attempt to read up on the subject matter before saying silly things. I'll list it for you:

RP Alliances holding territory:
CVA
Fourth District (I think)

RP Alliances NOT holding territory:
Ushra'Khan
Vigilia Valeria
Aegis Militia
Star Fraction
Electus Matari

And so on, the list grows.
The obscene sillyness is that CCP has for years told the people of those ALLIANCES that they need not worry, Faction Warfare is coming and they'll love it and it'll kick ass and they'll finally fight with sanction of their empires or against the empires they hate and so on and so forth.

Oh, except, turns out they'll have to disband first.


Jane Indy
Posted - 2008.05.17 06:22:00 - [362]
 

Maybe they could do it in a way that alliances not holding any Sov could join in, that would solve several problems, no super alliance mega blobs and most RP alliances could join in... i know it isn't perfect but it's something at least.

dolmant
Posted - 2008.05.17 11:20:00 - [363]
 

where can i download the live devblog?

Deviana Sevidon
Gallente
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.17 13:12:00 - [364]
 

factional warfare is, sorry to have to say it, bound to fail.

The problem is the PvP game mechanics itself. Within one week we will only see nano fleets dominating the battlefield and within four weeks FW will be more or less dead.

You may think this is a whine, but I am only predicting what will happen.



piece o'Jane
Posted - 2008.05.17 13:15:00 - [365]
 

How do you know? There isn't much info on it yet...
People are so pessimistic it makes me so angry.

Adhar Khorin
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2008.05.17 14:45:00 - [366]
 

People are pessimistic because they're gamers, not game designers. There are a fair number of sane people, but they're a minority and they tend to get drowned out by the louder, coarser voices. Just my opinion, but it's a trend across, well, all of history. :)

Siberys
Gallente
Experimental Horizons
Posted - 2008.05.17 15:02:00 - [367]
 

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but what exactly is this "Empyream Age" thing all about? From what I've read it is factional warfare, and I wanted to know a few things, namely:
1. Will you (Or your corperation) be required to take part in it?
2. Will it occur in "Safe" systems, or just low-sec and 0.0?
3. Will "safe" systems still be "Safe"?

Just as a comment, I also wanted to say that there would probobly be a lot of imbalances in actual factional combat, just to put an example the power of the Curse and Damnation compared to other ships of their class, so will the ships be tweaked or aditional ones added to balance it out?

ev0lutionX
Posted - 2008.05.17 15:08:00 - [368]
 

Originally by: Siberys

1. Will you (Or your corperation) be required to take part in it?
2. Will it occur in "Safe" systems, or just low-sec and 0.0?
3. Will "safe" systems still be "Safe"?



1. No
2. As I understand it, all across the EvE Universe as long as you sign up for a faction, if you don't, you're still "safe" in "safe" space.

Think of signing up for a faction as the war mechanic ingame now.

That's atleast the way I understood it.

Arshes Nei
LifeLine Solutions
Posted - 2008.05.17 20:29:00 - [369]
 

So your forcing roleplayers to disband their alliances if they want to take part in FW? Sorry but that sucks. Ask yourself WHY you gave us the ability to form playerowned corps and alliances in the first place, and see this in the context of ambulation.

Alliances are not just constructs created because a corp was full, they are more often collections of people with common goals but different ways to approach them. They are a great way to keep people close by that you like, but who have a vastly different playstyle than you. Let me elaborate with an example imaginary RP Alliance composed of the following corps:

1. ~80 PvP guys. Lots of young and old players, corp replacement program for t1 sub BS ships.
2. ~45 PvP guys. Invitation only, 20 mil SP min. Communistic approach, own t2 ship production.
3. 20 PvE/PvP guys. Running a small pos network, providing 1 and 2 with moon stuff and selling the rest, all ships private.
4. 55 Pve/PvP guys. Spanish corp, most speak some english but they have spanish corp chat.
...

Ok imagine that list going on, what are they supposed to do? Create a megacorp to join the FW? That would be a complete 180 degree turn on their current playstyle, also what model would they use? The communistic approach of corp 2? No more spanish in corpchat? Will the t2 BPOs now be used to supply 5x as many people or only the old members of corp 2?

Do you really want to pull friends apart cause of a gamemechanic? That just feels ... wrong.

This seems to be supposedly a content bridge between 0.0 alliance action and (comparably) small empire action, which is exactly where alot of the RP alliances stand. Yet they are barred from it. You will steal members from them, limiting their future growth, and ultimately kill them(imho). A sandbox game like eve shouldnt step on the turf of playercreated groups with npc corps/special rules, but maybe im alone with that thinking. Anyway you seemed to take great care of not stepping on the toes of the 0.0 alliances while already standing on the heads of the RP alliances in empire.

Why not just limit alliances wishing to join by size(max corp size springs to mind) or treat them like corps gamemechanic wise. Introducing a new feature enabling subgroups in corps(with own chatchannels and hangars), hell anything to throw those guys a bone. They deserve it and it wont make eve worse, quite the contrary.

P.S. Apart from that FW sounds like a load of fun, but im a bit worried that it will make fair pvp to easy to archive. I mean care to explain me why i should spend 5 hours roaming in 0.0 to get a handful of ganks, if i could have 5 hours of adrenaline pumping pvp in empire? Do you really think somone who got used to pvp in a enviroment like that will ever enjoy 0.0 pvp as it is now?

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.17 21:21:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Arshes Nei
Ask yourself WHY you gave us the ability to form playerowned corps and alliances in the first place,

what are they supposed to do? Create a megacorp to join the FW?

Do you really want to pull friends apart cause of a gamemechanic?

This seems to be supposedly a content bridge between 0.0 alliance action and (comparably) small empire action, which is exactly where alot of the RP alliances stand. Yet they are barred from it. You will steal members from them, limiting their future growth, and ultimately kill them(imho).

Anyway you seemed to take great care of not stepping on the toes of the 0.0 alliances while already standing on the heads of the RP alliances in empire.

P.S. Apart from that FW sounds like a load of fun, but im a bit worried that it will make fair pvp to easy to archive. I mean care to explain me why i should spend 5 hours roaming in 0.0 to get a handful of ganks, if i could have 5 hours of adrenaline pumping pvp in empire? Do you really think somone who got used to pvp in a enviroment like that will ever enjoy 0.0 pvp as it is now?


You ask that last question as if you thought they actualy think things through to their logical conclusion and not to whatever wishfullfilling conclusion they hope to get out of the process.

Dont get me worng, overall they seem to do a good job.. . . but all too often they seem to fall into the Step 1 steal underpants step 2. . . . Step 3 PROFIT! chain of logic with some things.

Frankly to me its a fairly blatant attempt by the developers to break up or disrupt up some of the aliances, and limmit the flow of players from high sec to 0.0 by providing the new players with a "alternative".

but then Im an old PARANOIA player YARRRR!!

Arshes Nei
LifeLine Solutions
Posted - 2008.05.17 22:11:00 - [371]
 

Originally by: Oakrayven

You ask that last question as if you thought they actualy think things through to their logical conclusion and not to whatever wishfullfilling conclusion they hope to get out of the process.

Dont get me worng, overall they seem to do a good job.. . . but all too often they seem to fall into the Step 1 steal underpants step 2. . . . Step 3 PROFIT! chain of logic with some things.

Frankly to me its a fairly blatant attempt by the developers to break up or disrupt up some of the aliances, and limmit the flow of players from high sec to 0.0 by providing the new players with a "alternative".

but then Im an old PARANOIA player YARRRR!!


Tbh i account it to technical difficulties. Some devs have a vision how stuff should be, then the programmer devs come and say:

"oh my, that would require a rewrite of the WHOLE corp/alliances system, oh and look at that, we would have to rewrite the mail delivery system for that, and that thing there would never work with our current chat system."

So they *sigh* and try to slimline things, if faction>alliance>corp is technically too difficult to implement they try to make do with alliance(faction)>corp. After all that might aswell solve some other nontechnical problems like keeping the big bad 0.0 boys out of the game. What we have to do as players is tell the devs when we dont like the way they implement something, and that it would be worth the extra time needed to do it differently.

Siberys
Gallente
Experimental Horizons
Posted - 2008.05.18 01:12:00 - [372]
 

That still leaves a few points unanswered, namely:
1. the balance of ships between factions
2. what happens to poor rookies accidentally caught in the blast of a bomb or superweapon? Will they be compensated as "civilian causualties"? or will they be blamed for their own deaths, that wern't even their fault to begin with?

Believe me, I like the sound of this, but some fine points still need to be worked out.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.18 03:37:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Arshes Nei
Originally by: Oakrayven

You ask that last question as if you thought they actualy think things through to their logical conclusion and not to whatever wishfullfilling conclusion they hope to get out of the process.

Dont get me worng, overall they seem to do a good job.. . . but all too often they seem to fall into the
Step 1 steal underpants
step 2. . . .
Step 3 PROFIT! chain of logic with some things.

but then Im an old PARANOIA player YARRRR!!


Tbh i account it to technical difficulties. Some devs have a vision how stuff should be, then the programmer devs come and say:

"oh my, that would require a rewrite of the WHOLE corp/alliances system, oh and look at that, we would have to rewrite the mail delivery system for that, and that thing there would never work with our current chat system."

So they *sigh* and try to slimline things, if faction>alliance>corp is technically too difficult to implement they try to make do with alliance(faction)>corp. After all that might aswell solve some other nontechnical problems like keeping the big bad 0.0 boys out of the game. What we have to do as players is tell the devs when we dont like the way they implement something, and that it would be worth the extra time needed to do it differently.


their is that

theirs also the reality that theires more of us than their are of them. . . or at least I hope so, It would be scary to think of someone single handedly paying their salaries . . . .and despite their best intentions they ended up with the player base as a whole doing with their game what they did not intend for it to be. Its fairly obvious they realy did not intend for the game to be Frigate blob of lagdeath for example, and I also suspect they did not intend for PvP to be so "expensive" that so mANY people end up virtualy macroboting a mining-production alt to pay for it at that players "comfort" level.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.05.18 04:48:00 - [374]
 

Let me clarify something

I personaly think that this (Faction warfare) or something like it, should have been in the game more or less from launch, then their would have been the steping stones of

Kill NPC missions in High sec empire.
Small scale PvP missions for faction in low sec.
Large scale PvP Aliance wars in high sec.

the problem is their running smack into some of the "Laws of MMO design" Especialy the big one that warns you that once the developers have established a form of gameplay, your game will atract only thoes who want that kind of gameplay, trying to change the type of game you play in mid stream risks alienating the very people who currently play your game.

that said, Im hopeing they get a lot better at explaining just what the heck is going on.



Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2008.05.18 06:19:00 - [375]
 

Originally by: Siberys
That still leaves a few points unanswered, namely:
1. the balance of ships between factions
2. what happens to poor rookies accidentally caught in the blast of a bomb or superweapon? Will they be compensated as "civilian causualties"? or will they be blamed for their own deaths, that wern't even their fault to begin with?

Believe me, I like the sound of this, but some fine points still need to be worked out.


1. I rather think that the ships are fairly well balanced against each other as it is, however I seriously doubt that fighting for a Faction will have anything to do with ship you choose to fly.

2. Since bombs or super weapons can not be fired except in 0.0 I really don't see how this is relevant. Smart bombs might I suppose, but since most rookies won't have signed up to fight for their faction their deaths would be handled exactly as any other death would be for the security level in which they died.


Major Death
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.18 12:16:00 - [376]
 

Thinking about it perhaps itís not a bad thing that none of the RP alliances are going to be in FW (MK 1). What can we expect to experience?

1. Mass invasions of Alts shouting nonsense and causing havoc. Of course the people who this in other MMOGs donít play EVEÖ

2. Pirates camping the gateways to the FW areas, massacring the hapless! Of course we all know that a bunch of PvP inexperienced individuals can defeat seasoned organised Pirates by numbers aloneÖ

3. Lag O' Mania! Enjoy 0.0 style lag in Low Sec!

In a way it shows what cruel people CCP can be Laughing

Miss CJB
Gallente
In White Suits
Posted - 2008.05.19 08:34:00 - [377]
 

i realy liked everythign i heard in the dev blog.

i agree with ccp's resioning behind keeping alliances out, however i'm not in a corp which is commeted to any alliance. i can see how it might annoy alliance members who want to play with the new feature.

the things i worry about most is lag and ballance, imo, thosends of people are going to decend on factional warfair, it will be interesting to see how the system handles it.

Salacir Khan
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.05.19 09:38:00 - [378]
 

Thats Great Stuff CCP!
A new Expension that I can't use, not even try out. Unless of course I leave my Alliance/Corp.
Which I am afraid many People will do when FW hits Trinity.

Its hillarious that You justify the Expension with the fact that many PvPers have a hard time trying to find a fight.
Draw more People from 0.0 to Emprire. Great Answer!

We are all spending our time in 0.0 to PvP! Thats pretty much the only reason to be out there. The Market sucks, moving stuff out there is a pain in the ass, POS warfare is very lame ect. ect.

That leads us to two Options :
Either FW will rule, which will pretty much will mean the end of Null.Null (not that populat anyway)
Or it will suck. Then its just a lot of wasted Developers time that could/should have been used on the many issues we have with. (A PvP Expension for 0.0 Pvpers any1?)

Oh, and one Question:
Has Dr.EyjoG done any reasearch on what is to be expected to happen with the market when the Carebears go to war ?
Just curious.



DiaBlo UK
ZDK
Posted - 2008.05.19 10:37:00 - [379]
 

Edited by: DiaBlo UK on 19/05/2008 10:47:30
nvm, seems things changed from what i've read, to what has been said in the dev blog.
see my post below for begging for a recording Rolling Eyes

DiaBlo UK
ZDK
Posted - 2008.05.19 10:45:00 - [380]
 

oh and, wheres my recording? Laughing

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
If you really want to listen to the blog, but can't make it that time, a recording will be made available at a later date.

Salacir Khan
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.05.19 10:57:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: DiaBlo UKyo sal o/

afaik, you don't need to leave your corp or alliance to take part, i did miss the live dev blog, and have not been able to listen to it, cause i can't find it yet. but from what i've read from before, you can sign-up without leaving corp/alliance.
[/quote




Unfortunatly thats not the case. :(

Live Blog :
http://www.warpdriveactive.com/2008/05/15/empyrean-age-live-dev-blog-mirror/


CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2008.05.19 13:06:00 - [382]
 

Please use this forum thread to discuss the Empyrean Age Live Dev Blog, it also contains a link to where you can find a recording for download. Smile


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [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