Oh you misunderstood me. I was referring to Thor's second paragraph where he points out that you are very down on the ideas of others without generating any meaningful alternatives other than claiming we are wrong. I've yet to see someone agree with you about this actually. As CPM aren't you supposed to represent the community? Currently your doing a very poor job of it.

Don't treat me like I'm your yes man. I'm not, and I never will be.

yes, entirely means I can not pass on your idea because it's really dumb.

You aren't privy to what I pass on or don't pass on as feedback, or what does or doesn't make it to those conversations, so to be blunt, you have no idea how well I am or not doing my job.

I see this comment every time I disagree with someone.

Stop insinuating that something nefarious is going on. It just makes you look ridiculous.

Have you actually ever played a game where there is team deployment? If you had you would know that a full team does not always win against a skilled group of randomly assembled players. Give it a try. While you may have concerns about the synced squad stomping constantly it is entirely unfounded.

Atiim, I don't think it's "nefarious evil secret plot" in that I think they're incredibly overt about it. ;) If you want to drum up support for something and not make it look like a corp agenda, at least use like... alts or something.

But the problem is... teams versus not teams, the teams will always win. This means that groups that can easily deploy teams (like the 600-man Molon Labe, which I am hesitant to call a coincidence) will have an incredible and distinct advantage over other players.

You want to make FacWar more like PC, Mobius. Here's the problem: PC sucks. It died as a game mode. Why? Because it wasn't designed competently, and you're promoting the primary problem it has.

This has nothing to do with solo players (or your corp's crusade for auto-squadding), it's about anyone who can't guarantee their corp has 16 people on every time they queue. The list of corps that can do that is likely limited to two or three. Your own corp being one of them. So your corp will profit immensely, whereas corps that get five or six people on at once get stomped by you every time.

And stop trying to strawman and represent me as against team deploy. I'm for it. I'm against enabling Molon to farm randoms via your insistence that teams not have to face other actual teams.

If everything was right in the world, this is what should happen:

FW, PC, and other types of matches (pubs and contracted battles (e.g. battles corps set up to fight each other outside of PC)) all need to be considered separate and profitable features to this game.

Faction Warfare needs to be war. Corps/other forces should apply for a faction like in Eve and be pitted against other corps for territory or whatever in Eve. Profits will come from salvage, small bounty prizes, and selling LP items on the market (hopefully there's a market and LP items are worth more than Proto, i.e. lower requirements and some +proto gear as well). Further integration with Eve pilots should be worked on as well, both having considerable influence on each other. As for the details on how this should happen, I have no idea, but it needs to one way or another. It should not be just another Pub match as is currently.

PC should be changed to a "Farms and Fields" form of profit. Players fight over districts for no profit except salvage, similar to what we have now. I have no problems with the mechanics of PC battles other than bugs and stuff. Once territory is claimed, players can roam a landscape and fight Pirate and Drone NPCs for salvage and CONCORD bounties, etc. Also, a corp may contract another to farm their districts, for a set price or percentage, allowing non-district holders access to this form of PvE (this wouldn't be the only form of PvE, but a more profitable and difficult one). As for how corps attack districts and preventing district locking, I have no idea, but we can think of something.

Pubs wouldn't change much. They'd be a reliable but low form of moneymaking (similar to missioning in Eve). Corp/Fight contracts can be made that can pit one corp or group of players against another, but no money will be rewarded or stats recorded (to prevent boosting). Stakes can be wagered at the start and perhaps spectators could be allowed somehow as well. Some form of High Sec PvE could also be allowed for solo or group players, but wouldn't be as profitable or difficult as PC/Low sec ratting.

There are a bunch of nuances I overlooked, but this is generally how things should be.

I am in no way trying to mis-represent your opinion. You are clearly trying to segregate FW into two different game modes, which is inherently wrong when FW is supposed to be more challenging, and more of a sandbox. Your proposal to separate teams from solo players has no place in a sandbox where player interactions and choices need to be freed from the handholding and protectionism of public matches. Low sec vs high sec and all that.

The problem is that FacWar can't be an all out war without balance. Look at EVE sovereignty, where there is no balance. War doesn't happen anymore. The game is stagnant because the game was designed in a way that prevented competition. There's no good reason to go to war, and there's no way to win a war even if you tried. FacWar will become the same if no consideration for balance is made.

I would argue that the reason FW still works with queue sync is something that would change with your proposal. Namely, that there's generally still a good chance right now of not ending up pitted against a full team. You want to make team deploying a lot more popular, which would change that atmosphere drastically. Because yes, as of now, every time I've seen a queue sync in FW, the queue sync wins. If anything, it's proof of the problem you aim to magnify. Making it simpler, and particularly much faster to do, leading to more team queues, leading to more being stomped if you aren't in a team queue, leading to less quality non-teams in FW.