|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14063
   |
Posted - 2014.11.03 01:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:o7
We routinely drop orbitals in FW and would be glad to show you around if you are in Amarr or Caldari.
As far as the locations that mechanic was taken away for whatever reason and I doubt it will be coming back even tho I also wish it would. The new contract generation is built to create maximum participation Dust side without disrupting the balance in Eve. If you go into the factional star map on dust and save the systems which Dust battles take place you can generally find a central location to base out of to stay generally within 8 jumps maximum of the battles with only a few outlying battles taking more, atleast that is what we have done for the Amarr.
If you have any questions, want to run some battles, or an OB fleet for Cal or Amarr you can contact my Eve character which is the CEO of my corp or drop me a line to this character.
If a dev is willing to explain contract placement I would also be very interested and love to try to give some input on how it should be changed.
Firstly everything......everywhere in the warzone is within 8 jumps....... centralised has nothing to do with it.
Secondly..... at one point FW contracts were suspected to have been based on a mechanic that suggested that contracts were generated based on the ratio of complex running in a system against that of the warzone which initially dust players thought mean that organising with EVE side players would allow the to target specific systems.....
This was false as we later learnt.
They were if I recall simply generated in a set number per hour in equal parts offensive and defensive contracts that led to massive disparity and imbalances that when considering a winning faction had 100 districts vs the enemy 10 would focus all of their offensive contracts into a single 100 district area vs the opposition whose efforts were diffuse over a wider pool of districts....in the end FWers managed to highlight this.
E.G- After the 7th consecutive battle against Minmatar on Raa VI D13 we knew something was ****** up.
As far as we know nothing specific generates battles in specific regions, systems, planets, nor do our efforts have more than a transient effect on a system wide VP (Victory Point) modifier which usually only lasts all of 15-30 minutes before those districts are lost. Thus we are rather useless for EVE militias and nothing more than a minor annoyance for them.
We cannot weaken specific systems or strong point them. Our efforts have no direct effect on system wide control, complexing, Hub Bashing, etc.
GÇ£How does this all work then?GÇ¥
GÇ£Like so Choirboy.GÇ¥
- Mila to Kador, Sub Zero Club, Shoashu Sasaanko
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14063
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 01:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kristoff Atruin wrote:The locations of FW battles in Dust are now determined by where Eve players are scoring points on the map in FW. FW battles appear to be spun up on demand, but get weighted so that they tend to be placed where the most eve-side action is happening. The idea was apparently to put Eve and Dust players in the same place more often. If the Amarr and Minmatar are fighting heavily for control of a particular system, then when players queue up for one of those factions there is a greater chance for that system to be selected than some backwater system where hardly any spaceship action is happening.
Of course the only problem is that eve players really have no effective mechanism for finding the battles at all, unless someone from the Dust side tells them where to go.
I don't believe that is the case.
I'd cite the recent conflicts in Huola a couple of months back. There was no increase in Huola contract generation than anywhere else in the Warzone.
GÇ£How does this all work then?GÇ¥
GÇ£Like so Choirboy.GÇ¥
- Mila to Kador, Sub Zero Club, Shoashu Sasaanko
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14063
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 01:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
JIMvc2 wrote:I remember in FW when there was 4 enemy eve pilots on the enemy side and I'm like wow
It's risky doing solo OB. You can be out to 10km > of the district satellite but you can't really scan accurately out to more than 5.0 AU since your probably going to be picking up space traffic or complexers.
If you are hammering short range scans to 1-2 AU you probably have about 5 seconds after picking up the ship to check what it is, guess if its committing to finding you, decided to bail or fight....especially since that enemy ship can drop in at you at any range is it knows which district you are on.
GÇ£How does this all work then?GÇ¥
GÇ£Like so Choirboy.GÇ¥
- Mila to Kador, Sub Zero Club, Shoashu Sasaanko
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
14063
|
Posted - 2014.11.03 01:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kristoff Atruin wrote:I haven't done orbitals at all in the last 5 months or so, but I did used to use my Dust account to find myself planets to bombard. I would regularly hit the same systems over, and over, and over. When Subdreddit was still doing FW syncs we'd also fight on the same planets over and over and over. It wasn't just dumb luck, because it always worked out that way.
Back then it was a result of the Amarr having too few systems and the Minmatar having a surplus.
Minmatar would commit X contracts per hour to maybe all of 10 Amarrian districts which we would defend, then lose, then attack, then defend, then defend, then defend, then lose, etc......
We'd also have sessions where our Q-Syncs would defend the same districts 6-7 times consecutively. That was not the result of plexing as far as PIE Inc was concerned as systems like Raa, Ezzara, Sifilar, etc where we usually fought were not systems with stations are were rarely desirable to plex in concerted efforts.
GÇ£How does this all work then?GÇ¥
GÇ£Like so Choirboy.GÇ¥
- Mila to Kador, Sub Zero Club, Shoashu Sasaanko
|
|
|
| |
|