Turn on friendly fire in FW.

The idea that any empire would actually hire some of the lazy peeps that we see enter this low security theater is laughable.

I propose a few things

1) Losers of said match don't get paid at all (free cash win or lose should be a pub thing)

2) Payouts double and triple when an Empire is underrepresented in FW aka is clearly losing eve side.

3) Merit based rewards (salvage/LP), you get rewarded more (or less) based on your history/contributions to the war effort with said factions equipment/weapons.

Thoughts?

meh, i would just take my alt to the caldari side and start murdering people.

That shouldn't prevent it from not being turned on. I like the idea of never knowing who is your 'real' ally. Adds an interesting element to the game.

The idea that any empire would actually hire some of the lazy peeps that we see enter this low security theater is laughable.

I propose a few things

1) Losers of said match don't get paid at all (free cash win or lose should be a pub thing)

2) Payouts double and triple when an Empire is underrepresented in FW aka is clearly losing eve side.

3) Merit based rewards (salvage/LP), you get rewarded more (or less) based on your history/contributions to the war effort with said factions equipment/weapons.

Thoughts?

Agreed.

FW should not degenerate into who has the best team killers.

1) Even in PC we pay out both sides, I can't see us not doing that for FW. That being said while raw ISK may be paid out that doesn't mean other things have to be. :)

2) Interesting, shall have to think about it. I am a bit tired right now but we had some reasons for not wanting to do that... those reasons may have changed now but as I said, tired... :)

3) Agreed. :)

That's not the point, just a facet of what can happen.

However it cannot and rarely does happen in EVE, this is AWOXING. This should only be possible if the potential is given to kick the player from the match (equivalent to kicking from a fleet thus removing the problem).

before you do the third can you bring out mim and amarr vehicles

Those are not my area, but I suppose we could delay the feature until they get done at an unknown point in time...

Since you are here CCP Foxfour.... are there any plans to introduce a Dust side Militia Systems like the EVE based system.

As it stands the only reason to stand loyal is for loyalties sake or if you like to RP.... as such no real Dust based efforts come together in a meaningful way.

But either way I love the premise of FW. Its the whole reason I play this game.

Those are not my area, but I suppose we could delay the feature until they get done at an unknown point in time...

Just so you guys know, giving nothing for losing a match leads to a lot of backlash from MMO players from my experience with DCUO. Mainly people who were previously useless decide to quit if they don't think they can win, then the team and the quitters replacement are disadvantaged and complain. Then they introduced a deserter penalty to address the quitting problem and then no one wanted to play the PVP because it all broke down to team composition and luck.

Now admittedly dust is much better balanced than DCUO but that's just how I'm afraid it would play out.

There are plans yes. No ETA. :)

The idea that any empire would actually hire some of the lazy peeps that we see enter this low security theater is laughable.

I propose a few things

1) Losers of said match don't get paid at all (free cash win or lose should be a pub thing)

2) Payouts double and triple when an Empire is underrepresented in FW aka is clearly losing eve side.

3) Merit based rewards (salvage/LP), you get rewarded more (or less) based on your history/contributions to the war effort with said factions equipment/weapons.

Thoughts?

Unknown point in time, really? Unless you're just playing with us, which I hope you are, does the team at CCP really not even have a general idea for when they want to release these? Quite frankly I don't know how you can balance all the vehicles when you're missing half of the variants.

But alas, I realize I am griping to the wrong dev here.

I'm not interested in the when. Thank you for the confirmation, I am glad that improvements are on the way. I would also hope/ assume that factionalised loot is possibly being added as well.......

By Militia system do you mean to imply a "sign on" system for both individuals and corporations that enforces or ensures player loyalty. Does this system affect faction relations/ standings?

They are two completely concepts and are unlike each other in so many ways, so you really can't compare the two games. Also, adding a deserter penalty as in DCUO would be frustrating, especially to the players IN squad that can't get in game but are still in the squad OR players that get the black screen or freeze. Said penalty would affect them too to an annoying extent.

I will say this....DCUO devs care more about their game imo. They have a test server in which players test for a week BEFORE any DLC/update goes live, just as many sales promotions, a weekly show with the devs on Twitch TV, attentive GM's and responsive support when you have an issue, IMMEDIATE bug fixes and an accurate annual roadmap that they allow players access to, so we aren't left scratching our heads. We know what will be coming every year and they deliver. I just wish CCP was as ambitious.

*sigh*

I would love to see players getting increased rewards for their loyalty for playing with a specific faction, however I don't want to lock people into factions.

DUST is meant to be a very social game and I think it is incredibly important that players can play with whoever they want.

For example, it would suck a LOT if you joined one corporation that was in say the Gallente militia and then some friends of yours play Caldari and you couldn't join them or had to jump through hoops just to do it.

I would love to see players getting increased rewards for their loyalty for playing with a specific faction, however I don't want to lock people into factions.

DUST is meant to be a very social game and I think it is incredibly important that players can play with whoever they want.

For example, it would suck a LOT if you joined one corporation that was in say the Gallente militia and then some friends of yours play Caldari and you couldn't join them or had to jump through hoops just to do it.

1) Even in PC we pay out both sides, I can't see us not doing that for FW.

That shouldn't prevent it from not being turned on. I like the idea of never knowing who is your 'real' ally. Adds an interesting element to the game.

1) Even in PC we pay out both sides, I can't see us not doing that for FW. That being said while raw ISK may be paid out that doesn't mean other things have to be. :)

Not developing factional warfare, as in, no loyalty points or building up / investment will severely hurt you guys in the long run. Fights with friends can be through pubs or planetary conquest, faction warfare should be its own meta game and confine all on its own.

Mercenaries-- they fight for the highest bidder.

Why the hell would a mercenary care what faction their employer is from? They would not!

Having no rewards for the loosing team would make a horrible game.
--Low to mid ranked teams would simply abandon ship and a very few top guilds would sway the entirety of the space map, not just most of it...
--No new teams would ever step foot inside to learn the ins and outs of how to play... it would have no point and no fun because it would be guaranteed losses.

Hes not saying that, you will likely get factional rewards, but at the same time, you don't want people getting locked into a faction cause it sucks if you change your mind! !

You should allow players to fight for any race at any time, but joining a miltia will improve your standings with that race faster!!

You still need a stairway so the non-elite can enjoy the game.

Endlessly being stomped or excluded from aspects of the game is not the way to retain players.

You still need a stairway so the non-elite can enjoy the game.

Endlessly being stomped or excluded from aspects of the game is not the way to retain players.

meh, i would just take my alt to the caldari side and start murdering people.

[ Then FW is not for them. They have Pub matches for that.

FW is for those who are wlling to commit time and resources to fighting for their faction to earn LP and or standing with the faction so they can reap the beenfits.

Casual- Pub Matches

FW and PC- for more dedicated gamers.

1) Even in PC we pay out both sides, I can't see us not doing that for FW. That being said while raw ISK may be paid out that doesn't mean other things have to be. :)

2) Interesting, shall have to think about it. I am a bit tired right now but we had some reasons for not wanting to do that... those reasons may have changed now but as I said, tired... :)

3) Agreed. :)

Those are not my area, but I suppose we could delay the feature until they get done at an unknown point in time...

Then FW is not for them. They have Pub matches for that.

FW is for those who are wlling to commit time and resources to fighting for their faction to earn LP and or standing with the faction so they can reap the beenfits.

Casual- Pub Matches

FW and PC- for more dedicated gamers.

Just so you guys know, giving nothing for losing a match leads to a lot of backlash from MMO players from my experience with DCUO. Mainly people who were previously useless decide to quit if they don't think they can win, then the team and the quitters replacement are disadvantaged and complain. Then they introduced a deserter penalty to address the quitting problem and then no one wanted to play the PVP because it all broke down to team composition and luck.

Now admittedly dust is much better balanced than DCUO but that's just how I'm afraid it would play out.

Foxfour only the winning side in PC gets paid

I would love to see players getting increased rewards for their loyalty for playing with a specific faction, however I don't want to lock people into factions.

DUST is meant to be a very social game and I think it is incredibly important that players can play with whoever they want.

For example, it would suck a LOT if you joined one corporation that was in say the Gallente militia and then some friends of yours play Caldari and you couldn't join them or had to jump through hoops just to do it.

Sorry, I was a bit tired. Both sides get salvage is what I meant.

Then FW is not for them. They have Pub matches for that.

FW is for those who are wlling to commit time and resources to fighting for their faction to earn LP and or standing with the faction so they can reap the beenfits.

Casual- Pub Matches

FW and PC- for more dedicated gamers.

We're not saying exclude players from aspects of the game, we're simply creating tiers of how committed you are. Want to play casually? Join public matches. Have a little more commitment than that and want to form squads and work with EVE players? Join faction matches. Want to control everything between just your corp? Join planetary conquest.

Some people are more worried about ensuring that all players on their side are good... whether or not they are committed... which is somewhat exclusionary if that is the effect.

My own view -- finding ways to allow non-elites access to the full game is more likely to keep player numbers where they should be.

However, yes, of course it would be nice to have crappy players play with other crappy players if that can be done somehow. Everyone hates the random blueberry that screws up the game.

FW is where I'll go for sure. I want good teams against eachother, fighting 'til the last clone!

But what does the random Joe without a squad and no friends in EVE possibly have to gain from FW that he can't achieve from public matches? From my perspective you are not excluding anyone from anything.

And I've said this several times before, yes I'm upset if I lose in FW but I wouldn't get angry if my teammates were at least trying. Since FW is effectively a redundant copy of public matches too often I see solo blue dots hanging out in the redzone sniping or manning pointless turrets and not trying to make a push at all. Making the players in FW have some sort of commitment is far more important than ensuring all the good players are on my side, in my opinion.

The idea that any empire would actually hire some of the lazy peeps that we see enter this low security theater is laughable.

I propose a few things

1) Losers of said match don't get paid at all (free cash win or lose should be a pub thing)

2) Payouts double and triple when an Empire is underrepresented in FW aka is clearly losing eve side.

3) Merit based rewards (salvage/LP), you get rewarded more (or less) based on your history/contributions to the war effort with said factions equipment/weapons.

Thoughts?

Link to squad finder confirmation?

I propose a few things

1) Losers of said match don't get paid at all (free cash win or lose should be a pub thing)

2) Payouts double and triple when an Empire is underrepresented in FW aka is clearly losing eve side.

3) Merit based rewards (salvage/LP), you get rewarded more (or less) based on your history/contributions to the war effort with said factions equipment/weapons.

Thoughts?

I'm in full support of excluding solo players (and small squads) from FW altogether.

In my mind, when you que up for FW with your 6-man squad (or team when team deploy is implemented) you should expect to see the match full of other 6-man squads (or teams) on both sides every single time. No exceptions.

In reality we're not even excluding anyone here. The only thing we're doing is making you join a squad if you want to play FW. With the implementation of the Squad Finder in 1.5 (confirmed by FoxFour) it's going to be even easier to squad up for FW. You'll even be able to name your squads, so I'm sure players will easily be able to find squads named "FW squad" or something similar.

The only issue with this is that 6-man squads won't work for 16 players on a team. This is of course a chance for CCP to give us 48 or 64 player battles (64 player battles would require 8-man squads of course), or just 36 if they feel that the game can't handle more than that. Unless of course they go the cheap way and go back to 4-man squads instead and then stay at 32 player battles.

Either way, FW matches should be squads and teams vs squads and teams all day long.

I don't disagree with you.

I don't know how long we'll have to wait for PVE but until there is something new and interesting under the sun you'll probably find crappy players exploring everything -- squad-up rules or not.

I guess what I'm really trying to do is toss a flare out for CCP so that they realize they can't put in dynamics that leave the game uninteresting for those that aren't the most skilled or that haven't wormed their way into a competent corporation. For example, in EVE they've given people mining, manufacturing, trading, missioning and other ways to develop to a point of being able to field an effective fit or simply contribute through economics.

Here, we have nothing for these folks except the same old pub matches. And no, we can't just exclude them from the fun parts of the game entirely, as half the player base has to be below average - by definition. They may not be elite but they will be helping fund the game.