DUST Search - FW PLAYERS UNITE! DONT LET CCP+CPM FOOL YOU!

All Channels

General Discussions

FW PLAYERS UNITE! DONT LET CCP+CPM FOOL YOU!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:44:00 - [1] - Quote This is a call for all FW players, we must unite to stop CCP+CPM from doing a huge mistake with the next update. What is it that we all want? What is it that we are looking for? What is it that would make our all lives in FW easier? It is one and only one thing that the CPM and CCP are trying to reserve for Planetary Conquest. This my friends is Team Deploy, CCP put out a new Devblog with PC changes and squad size changes. The ironic things is that CCP is trying to tell us how it would make our lives better in FW. What CCP havent typed on the Devblog is that the one thing that we all want will not be avaible for us but rather will only be avaible for Planetary concquest. The Squad changes will be the following: Fireteam= 4 palyers (can enter pubs, FW and PC) Squad= 8 players (can enter FW and PC) *Platoon= 16 players (CAN ONLY ENTER PC MATCHES)* This is a huge mistake and i assume that either CCP or CPM is to blame for this. We the FW players had enough, the years without beeing aible to team deploy and now you implement it but refuse to let them join FW matches? Seriously who came up with this? Every FW player wants team deploy but yet you screw it up. With this one blog ive lost my faith in CCP and the CPM. Proof of the fail: http://web.ccpgamescdn.com/dust/news.control/67321/1/pic6.png Full devblog: http://dust514.com/news/blog/2015/06/introducing-warlords-1.2-planetary-conquest-revamp/ PS: if this is a pic work in progress and we get team deploy for FW at the release i will forgive CCP+CPM. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 914	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:46:00 - [2] - Quote CCP introduces multiple positive changes CCP makes a tweakable decision on Team Deploy Bright Cloud disagrees with this theory, and thus CCP is a failure of a company Yeah... okay. I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:48:00 - [3] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: CCP introduces multiple positive changes CCP makes a tweakable decision on Team Deploy Bright Cloud disagrees with this theory, and thus CCP is a failure of a company Yeah... okay. No im upset that team deploy has to be tweaked to begin with. It should be there for FW from the get go cause i certainly dont want to wait like 3 months+ till things get changed. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 914	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:52:00 - [4] - Quote It is probably a balance issue - If everyone team deploys, queue times for non-corp (and Non American, really) players go through the roof. Additionally, Platoons may completely destroy match quality for teams with fewer than 16 players who also want to try out FW (maybe for lore reasons). We can't have pre-end game modes that are completely blocked off to new players, otherwise new players go from "Easier pubs" to "Soul Crushing FW" with no middle ground I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 15:59:00 - [5] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: It is probably a balance issue - If everyone team deploys, queue times for non-corp (and Non American, really) players go through the roof. Additionally, Platoons may completely destroy match quality for teams with fewer than 16 players who also want to try out FW (maybe for lore reasons). We can't have pre-end game modes that are completely blocked off to new players, otherwise new players go from "Easier pubs" to "Soul Crushing FW" with no middle ground FW is allready a que sync mania. We are tired from this bollocks that we need to q-sync squads to begin with. Yeah we will "only" need 2 squads to q-sync in the future instead of 3 (2X6 man squad and a 4 man squad). Yet it is still one squad leader too much for this. If we allready get the option to team deploy then allow it for FW FFS. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 24	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:02:00 - [6] - Quote While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Arkena Wyrnspire aka "British Khorne" - Cross Atu Gallente Guide
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:04:00 - [7] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Maybe but otherwise nobody will give a damn. The FW community is waiting way too long for this and it is a pity that they are making it PC only. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 24	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:07:00 - [8] - Quote Sure. So let's conduct a civilised campaign to get 16 man teams into FW, rather than call CCP out as a failure of a company. As someone who runs a major FW channel I'm happy that we're at least getting 8 man squads. That's an improvement. It needs to be upped to 16, certainly, but it is still an improvement. Arkena Wyrnspire aka "British Khorne" - Cross Atu Gallente Guide
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 914	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:08:00 - [9] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Maybe but otherwise nobody will give a damn. The FW community is waiting way too long for this and it is a pity that they are making it PC only. WL 1.2 will probably be released in two weeks. Why don't you make a compelling argument in favor of Platoons in FW, and address concerns of such a change in your post? I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:14:00 - [10] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Maybe but otherwise nobody will give a damn. The FW community is waiting way too long for this and it is a pity that they are making it PC only. WL 1.2 will probably be released in two weeks. Why don't you make a compelling argument in favor of Platoons in FW, and address concerns of such a change in your post? Cause i dont need a argument due to the obvious fact that we all want it since day 1 when FW started. CCP can see that by the amount of q-synced squads going into FW. It is a basic understanding that FW is not supposed to be a friendly playground Ratatti made that clear when he pointed it out that the Public matchmaking does not apply to FW Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Sure. So let's conduct a civilised campaign to get 16 man teams into FW, rather than call CCP out as a failure of a company. As someone who runs a major FW channel I'm happy that we're at least getting 8 man squads. That's an improvement. It needs to be upped to 16, certainly, but it is still an improvement. Because playing the nice guy isnt my role on the forum. And i havent called CCP out as a failure just that the decision they make is wrong and rage inducing for the FW community. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.

Regis Blackbird DUST University Ivy League 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:16:00 - [11] - Quote The future squad setup is a huge improvement of what we currently have, so it's hardly a failure. Sure, it would be nice to not have to q-sync at all, but I don't think today's FW is in a good state to introduce it.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:20:00 - [12] - Quote Regis Blackbird wrote: The future squad setup is a huge improvement of what we currently have, so it's hardly a failure. Sure, it would be nice to not have to q-sync at all, but I don't think today's FW is in a good state to introduce it. It would actually boost the popularity quite a bit. Cause then you could make your own team and deploy into FW without having to rely on randoms. Corps would support FW much more as they do now or even create FW specific corps for each faction to then deploy as a single loyalist corp. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Dreis ShadowWeaver 0uter.Heaven 4	Posted - 2015.06.24 16:59:00 - [13] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: As someone who runs a major FW channel I'm happy that we're at least getting 8 man squads. Wait, what? Surely you're not talking about Lucent Echelon? How can you claim to run it when you're barely ever on? Creator of the 'Nova Knifers United' channel My Minja Blog Caldari blood, Matari heart <3
Squagga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 825	Posted - 2015.06.24 17:22:00 - [14] - Quote I had no idea this was only for PC. This should definitely be for FW. I don't think it should be for pubs Shields, the silent killer.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 18:07:00 - [15] - Quote Squagga wrote: I had no idea this was only for PC. This should definitely be for FW. I don't think it should be for pubs Nobody wants that for pubs, we want it for FW. Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 18:33:00 - [16] - Quote Rablerablerable Official CPM Platform
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.06.24 19:02:00 - [17] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Maybe but otherwise nobody will give a damn. The FW community is waiting way too long for this and it is a pity that they are making it PC only. Queue syncing is an endemic problem to faction warfare and it's tantamount to abuse of the system. If you think a 6 man squad dominates a pub match (which they often do) surely the effect must be dramatically exaggerated for the 16man q-syncs that go on in FW. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Bright Cloud Namtar Elite Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 19:16:00 - [18] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: Bright Cloud wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: While I absolutely agree FW should have team deploy, don't you think you're taking this a little hard? Maybe but otherwise nobody will give a damn. The FW community is waiting way too long for this and it is a pity that they are making it PC only. Queue syncing is an endemic problem to faction warfare and it's tantamount to abuse of the system. If you think a 6 man squad dominates a pub match (which they often do) surely the effect must be dramatically exaggerated for the 16man q-syncs that go on in FW. Q-syncs in FW are no issue they are working as intended. I dont understand why we dont get this for FW. Most FPS games let you fill one side with your players so why is CCP actively pushing against this? Dont they want teamwork? And you have to understand that FW is the closest thing to a PC match as you can get. -better salvage -winner gets rewarded and the loser gets shafted -higher risk of dying Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 938	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:09:00 - [19] - Quote Here is an example of an argument against 16 merc Q-Syncs as proposed by you (You should do the opposite of this): I believe that 16 merc Q-syncs present more difficulties than solutions for the FW game mode as a whole. The issues include, but are not limited to, the following: FW Platoons make FW match quality extremely low for any players - new or veteran - not also in a platoon. Continuing from above: FW platoons destroys the relationship between game modes and difficulty - i.e Pubs (Low difficulty) --> FW (Medium Difficulty) --> PC (Maximum difficulty) Continuing from above: If FW platoons cause low quality matches for opponents not in platoons, fewer people will join FW matches in the first place. FW is too great of an ISK sink to go into a match you believe to be heavily stacked against you (If you are a player who is not in a platoon) Continuing from above: If fewer people queue into FW, battle timers for people in FW platoons also increase. People in platoons are (presumably) more likely to queue for FW matches because the odds are more even, and community of "People with 15 active friend" is significantly smaller than the community of "People who play FW". If you agree with my individual points, then I would argue that introducing platoons to the current iteration of FW would actually be counter productive to the game mode. In fact, I think that FW would become an even less active place that Molden Heath, because at least in MH you can force an attack at a specific time, where as in the proposed FW you have to wait for someone else to queue. I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
demens grimwulff Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 467	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:14:00 - [20] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: CCP introduces multiple positive changes CCP makes a tweakable decision on Team Deploy Bright Cloud disagrees with this theory, and thus CCP is a failure of a company Yeah... okay. Piercing, MassiveNine, Harlequin 13, Stateproperty, and JL311 all say 'hi' Good to see you back, despite having never played with you in game. As the archeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end

Nirwanda Vaughns 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:16:00 - [21] - Quote when it comes to FW i'd like to get a small amount of standing even if you lose. 5-10 points is all so you can at least build your level up even if your faction is getting stomped for a few weeks. You'll never have enough ISK to buy my C-II BPO
Krixus Flux Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:18:00 - [22] - Quote Palyers sound so OP Saying what's on people's minds
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 10	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:22:00 - [23] - Quote Usually you don't get this great an over reaction til day one of an update. And do you honestly think that this kind of tone will get the ear of CCP or the CPM better? Because I can assure you that you not only failed to do so, but are actually being counter productive to your goals. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Mejt0 Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:29:00 - [24] - Quote You should also demand for 'i want easier wins' button. It will suit with platoons in FW. FW shouldn't be like PC. Yet people do everything (qsync) to do so. Loyal to The State Member of : State Protectorate Belongs to : Patriots power bloc Civire Bloodline
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:45:00 - [25] - Quote Bright Cloud wrote: Piercing Serenity wrote: It is probably a balance issue - If everyone team deploys, queue times for non-corp (and Non American, really) players go through the roof. Additionally, Platoons may completely destroy match quality for teams with fewer than 16 players who also want to try out FW (maybe for lore reasons). We can't have pre-end game modes that are completely blocked off to new players, otherwise new players go from "Easier pubs" to "Soul Crushing FW" with no middle ground FW is allready a que sync mania. We are tired from this bollocks that we need to q-sync squads to begin with. Yeah we will "only" need 2 squads to q-sync in the future instead of 3 (2X6 man squad and a 4 man squad). Yet it is still one squad leader too much for this. If we allready get the option to team deploy then allow it for FW FFS. Faction is for the faction.... not the "Private Group" that's what PC is. Private groups fighting for territory. Queue syncers should be forced to jump through rabbit holes and dance the pole of fire, just to stay together. They've never added anything to the public matches. Faction warfare, can be a bit more organized, obviously a stepping stone. it's quite obvious this is where the cryhards will turn up, because they can't win at PC, nor can they Queue Synch as well for public matches anymore. It's an EXCELLENT filter to keep the game alive. If you want to stack your odds, then you better be willing to play against people who are just as prepared to stack odds. Hence only the 16 gets the PC treatment. http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU Dust to Dust Remember the dream you had before the day you were born.
Piercing Serenity Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 943	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:47:00 - [26] - Quote demens grimwulff wrote: Piercing Serenity wrote: CCP introduces multiple positive changes CCP makes a tweakable decision on Team Deploy Bright Cloud disagrees with this theory, and thus CCP is a failure of a company Yeah... okay. Piercing, MassiveNine, Harlequin 13, Stateproperty, and JL311 all say 'hi' Good to see you back, despite having never played with you in game. I haven't really left, but that's besides the point. Thank you for passing on that message. I didn't even know that Massive still played! I got enemies, got a lot of enemies , got a lot of people tryna drain me of this energy
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:47:00 - [27] - Quote Team Deploy changes nothing. Yes it aids in Q-Syncing but it doesn't address the central problems FW has. FW needs player agency. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.06.24 20:50:00 - [28] - Quote ^Faction warfare really needs cheating to not be so well rewarded. And yes, q-syncing is cheating. It gives an absolutely unbelievable advantage over people not doing it, so much so that it's relatively fair to say that a q-sync will beat absolutely anything short of another q-sync. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 293	Posted - 2015.06.24 21:14:00 - [29] - Quote Mina Longstrike wrote: ^Faction warfare really needs cheating to not be so well rewarded. And yes, q-syncing is cheating. It gives an absolutely unbelievable advantage over people not doing it, so much so that it's relatively fair to say that a q-sync will beat absolutely anything short of another q-sync. I would disagree on q-syncing being cheating...it's really not anymore cheating than say Scamming or awoxing, and while it provides an advantage, it is perfectly allowed within the system, and is not a violation of the TOS, therefore is not cheating. Just as using Prototype Suits/Modules/Equipment, the Scrambler/Combat Rifles (Situation Dependent, and in some cases the ARR), or Capsuleer Provided EVE support isn't cheating, despite the massive advantages those provide. Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.06.24 21:22:00 - [30] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Mina Longstrike wrote: ^Faction warfare really needs cheating to not be so well rewarded. And yes, q-syncing is cheating. It gives an absolutely unbelievable advantage over people not doing it, so much so that it's relatively fair to say that a q-sync will beat absolutely anything short of another q-sync. I would disagree on q-syncing being cheating...it's really not anymore cheating than say Scamming or awoxing, and while it provides an advantage, it is perfectly allowed within the system, and is not a violation of the TOS, therefore is not cheating. Just as using Prototype Suits/Modules/Equipment, the Scrambler/Combat Rifles (Situation Dependent, and in some cases the ARR), or Capsuleer Provided EVE support isn't cheating, despite the massive advantages those provide. Thaddeus summarised the core of my argument with one difference. I frankly don't give a damn if the other side wants to play in an organised setting or not. If possible I 'll try to make it an organised setting because I see FW as something more than a public match. If people don't want to squad up in it that is their problem and not mine. They can solo grind in Public matches where their actions matter slightly less. I love a competitive match as much as the next FWer but the goal of FW is to organise yourselves into militia groups to win and I want to win. Using organisation to achieve this goal is arguably the most valuable/respectable method of reaching that end destination. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.