These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Proposal] Faction War

Author
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#1 - 2012-04-04 22:39:17 UTC
Originally, I was going to throw this idea out. However, the more I thought about it and 'tweaked' it the more I liked it. Then, I shared it with some militia friends, and they seemed to like it to--actually quite a bit (what parts I shared)--so I revisited portions of it, and fleshed out some of the details I was lacking.

A lot of my ideas includes changes that are interconnected, so in the beginning I'm going to give a high-level overview of it. I will probably be posting several follow up posts, fleshing out some of the details on my blog.



The Big Picture

Instead of removing occupancy, I suggest we change it -- introducing tiered sovereignty mechanics that are unique to faction war. Each system would have 5 'lvls' of occupancy shared between the warring factions. When one faction has lvl 2, the other will have lvl 3, etc., so that the total occupancy equals 5. This also means that when you gain an occupancy lvl, the opposing faction loses one.

Instead of occupancy only being tied to plexing, I propose we make it tied to all activity done within that system, giving players many options for defending and/or taking occupancy in systems. Missions done by agents in that system, pvp, and plexing would all give Victory Point payouts that would affect occupancy.

ArrowYour occupancy lvl would directly affect your LP payouts, with missions, plexes, and pvp giving lp payouts. It would be beneficial to take occupancy lvls to increase your income. Also, it would be beneficial to defend, as losing occupancy will make your income in that system decrease.

Once a faction gains an Occupancy lvl 4 (which will be relatively difficult to do) the system goes 'vulnerable' and they can make a final push to take Sovereignty of that system. This would include a structure/timer/etc similar to current null-sec mechanics.

ArrowOnly FW pilots of the sovereign faction, and the 'sister' facation will have access to the stations in each system. (No neutrals)

In addition to these individual system mechanics, there would also be further overarching mechanics regarding 'the war' as a whole. The more occupancy and sovereignty you take in low-sec will directly affect your 'defenses' in highsec. There is the understanding that as you 'lose' occupancy lvls and sov in general in the low-sec systems, the 'faction police' will be sent to 'the front' to help defend. Therefore, the defenses in highsec will descrease, and in some cases, pvp will 'bleed' over into high-sec.



In addition to these general changes, I would


ArrowMake it so that only lvl 1-3 agents are in stations. LVL 4 agents would be moved into locations in space, similar to CONCORD agents in null-sec, and would be difficult to complete without a small gang.

ArrowFix the unbalance in ewar and etc. in plexes, making plexes balanced across all races.

ArrowRepping someone from your faction will never give you a standings decrease, even if the person is a pirate. Neutrals repping FW pilots would get a standings hit from the opposing faction.


After the 'fixing' and 'reblancing' I would include the following New Content features:


ArrowLVL 5 Faction War missions that require largish fleets to get through.


ArrowRandomly occurring FW 'encounters' where NPC battles show up on gates and stations, and FW pilots could defend friendly NPCs, and kill enemy NPCs. The staged 'battle' would complete when all NPCs of one side were defeated. These encounters would range in size and scope, from small 'frigate' encounters to larger BS encounters..and could possibly include a good 'drop' of some kind, if a faction 'officer' happened to show up at the end. They would also be extremely dangerous to non FW 'neutrals' who would get shot by both parties.

'Invulnerable' systems would be more prone to these 'encounters.'


ArrowRandom, wild cool stuff that mostly just relates to FW. (In the same way that dictors, bubbles, cyno jammers, and etc, are only really useful in nullsec)

I could get pretty imaginative here, but it's just a rough idea. An example would be a pos module that an 'offensive' party (ie: the non sov holding party) could put up that 'disrupts' communications in system, making it harder for the defending party to access their lvl 4 agents in space.

Or, perhaps a faction ship/item that gives you bonuses based on your faction standing.

Or perhaps a different kind of jump bridge that can connect highsec Faction 'bases' to low-sec 'bases' where both sovereignty and a high occupancy lvl is held.




Anyway, just an idea. I think FW needs more choices.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

JamesCLK
#2 - 2012-04-04 23:13:18 UTC
+1 for the concept of altering fringe high sec system status.

Not quite sure how much constructive critisism I can provide -- I'm not a FW kinda guy, but I do find it interesting to read about -- regardless, I read through your idea and it seems pretty solid.

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.

Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
#3 - 2012-04-05 00:17:17 UTC
I would really like to see random NPC battles between the factions at war. To me, little things like that make FW just that much more interesting and fun to be in. CCP take notice of this!

+1 Susan
SigmaPi
Space Men
#4 - 2012-04-05 04:48:49 UTC
+1 internets to Susan
Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2012-04-05 07:09:43 UTC
SigmaPi wrote:
+1 internets to Susan

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

agharaster
The Congregation
Same Great Taste
#6 - 2012-04-05 07:50:44 UTC
very nice and wise.

i like very much the part with capsuleers involved in NPC battles: it could be done with a kind of special missions, from frigates to bs. And it looks like an arena, maybe with restricted gates: shiptype and number of people (easily solved with an agent that gives you a certain number of tags, for you and your gang, to activate the gate - same for your opposite fw).

good job

o7

agha
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-04-05 12:15:19 UTC
The parts about occupancy level directly affecting income and pvp 'bleeding' into highsec sound good. So does the fixes and rebalances part.

Quote:
Only FW pilots of the sovereign faction, and the 'sister' facation will have access to the stations in each system. (No neutrals)


Now, while I see the reason for this (alts) I'm worried this will turn lowsec too much into an FW-only zone. People will be forced to either leave that part of lowsec or join factional warfare against their will because that's the only way they can get access to stations.
I think a good middle ground would be to either allow neutrals to dock OR only restrict docking in faction-specific stations such as 24th imperial crusade or tribal liberation force.

Also to fulfill my role as the eternal dissident... I don't know if more pve and missions is the way to go. Level 5 missions will attract more mission runners who don't contribute at all to the pvp side of FW. We already have enough of those. The random encounters may also do the same.
I'd tie FW missions to pvp in some way. Maybe allow one mission per kill or something similar to avoid too much mission running by people who don't actually take part in FW.

Just my thoughts, please don't hate me.
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#8 - 2012-04-05 12:41:03 UTC
Bischopt wrote:


Quote:
Only FW pilots of the sovereign faction, and the 'sister' facation will have access to the stations in each system. (No neutrals)


Now, while I see the reason for this (alts) I'm worried this will turn lowsec too much into an FW-only zone. People will be forced to either leave that part of lowsec or join factional warfare against their will because that's the only way they can get access to stations.


I wish you were on TS3 last night...we had about a 1+ hour discussion on FW, and this would have been a really good point to make, since the biggest discussion point was on whether neutral should have access to stations or not.

I'll probably be addressing this on my blog later today, but I think the issue you brought up is not one I've previously considered, and something I'm definitely going to muse on for a while.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

Anne Tesla
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2012-04-05 13:01:05 UTC
+1

I really like the idea of agents in space and random NPC battles. This has always been something I thought was missing. Some sort of alert for militia pilots in adjacent systems would be pretty cool as well so you could mobilize and have a focus for engagements with hostile pilots.

Say you like to camp a certain gate, the NPC's will drop on you, and send out a call for capsuleer backup.

Being able to scan out and disrupt/attack the agents would also be a plus.

Linking the mechanic of sov in low sec to NPC Navy presence in high sec is also a great idea.

Drake Draconis
Obsidian Engineering
Evictus.
#10 - 2012-04-05 14:36:28 UTC
There is already a distinct impression that they are going to do this very type of system in the Keynote I watched.

Something about I-Hubs for FW.

Might want to look into it. OP.

Got my vote. :)

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Suliux
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-04-05 14:45:31 UTC
+1

Perhaps if a faction can achieve the very difficult task of level 5 occupancy/sov, they are able to install gate and station guns that shoot at the opposing factions ... or something like that. At least something to make it more difficult to take it back and drawn out instead of the the standard TZ flips that it is now.

Suli
Sumdumgi
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2012-04-05 17:30:20 UTC
+1 Nice write up Susan

I'm all for adding some changes in over time to keep things interesting. FW has been lacking that since inception. If CCP can change the mechanics on capitals ships, find they are OP or don't work correctly and change them again within a fairly short period of time, why can't FW get the same kind of new idea implimentation / tweaking?

Get those 4 guys that have the cubicles in the back left closest to the cafeteria at CCP, you know, the slightly overweight but wicked smart ones, stick them with Hans (CSM), and let's get some things rolling. Hans said he would be happy to have CCP fly him out for some serious brainstorm sessions.

Hans, take it from here m8. Bitter vets, watch out, change may be comin'...

-Sum

Late Night Alliance
RougeOperator
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-04-06 05:28:37 UTC
I like a lot of what you put out.

Im against any denial of docking in any way shape or form.


Fluff is not rules and usually leads to bad mechanics long run when you try to apply game play elements from the fluff standpoint. There are better negative things that can be done like shutting of station services rather then out right keeping you from docking that could be done.

I dont like the push to make Low Sec FW into null light that CCP is trying to go with.

Heck soundwaves interview was scary as it came off as if he has no connection to the FW community and what they want.




**Space wizards are real, they can make 10058 votes vanish. "and for a moment i hurd 10k goons cry out, then silence" **

Rimase
#14 - 2012-04-06 12:50:58 UTC
Already a thread here, which is probably in wrong place: Fanfest: Faction Warfare

Roll

Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#15 - 2012-04-06 13:09:29 UTC
Bischopt wrote:
The parts about occupancy level directly affecting income and pvp 'bleeding' into highsec sound good. So does the fixes and rebalances part.

Quote:
Only FW pilots of the sovereign faction, and the 'sister' facation will have access to the stations in each system. (No neutrals)


Now, while I see the reason for this (alts) I'm worried this will turn lowsec too much into an FW-only zone. People will be forced to either leave that part of lowsec or join factional warfare against their will because that's the only way they can get access to stations.
I think a good middle ground would be to either allow neutrals to dock OR only restrict docking in faction-specific stations such as 24th imperial crusade or tribal liberation force.

Also to fulfill my role as the eternal dissident... I don't know if more pve and missions is the way to go. Level 5 missions will attract more mission runners who don't contribute at all to the pvp side of FW. We already have enough of those. The random encounters may also do the same.
I'd tie FW missions to pvp in some way. Maybe allow one mission per kill or something similar to avoid too much mission running by people who don't actually take part in FW.

Just my thoughts, please don't hate me.


I have to agree with him.

Currrently the plexxing mechanics can bring about good quality pvp. Steps can be taken to increase the pvp for occupancy, but your proposal seems to increase the importance of pve instead of pvp.

For example you just say missioning should lead to change of occupancy but don't explain why. Also, as far as adding random npc battles I have to say I hope shooting these red crosses wouldn't effect occupancy. But by and large I just see that sort of like when incursions go to low sec systems. What happens? Those systems are avoided. It always sounds good to talk about new ais and new npcs in what if terms. However, when they are actually added to the game people soon realize that playing against a computer ai is never nearly as fun as playing against other players.

What are your thoughts on that?

Other than that I think a graduated system is ok. I do think one side will gain momentum and steamroll the other side if the benefits of joining the winning side are as good as the op seems to suggest. What will happen then? Do you think some sort of balancing mechanism should be used?

As far requireing faction war players to form groups in order to make isk I am against it. (being limitted to level 3 missions when there are others doing level 5s would suck) I have very few nights where I can fully dedicate 2 straight hours to eve with headset and mic. When I do have those times I would like to do pvp not mission.

I would prefer to do missions on the times where I may only have a bit of time here and there to play eve - and that means solo. I realize I may be more casual than even most fw players but I hope the drive to make fw like null sec doesn't leave me out.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#16 - 2012-04-07 23:34:09 UTC
After talking to my alliance a bit about docking and sovereignty and etc., I came up with the following idea for the 'docking' issue. A sort of compromise that allows docking in NPC stations in empire for everyone, but gives serious benefits for FW pilots to own a station - and consequences for losing it.

You can read the whole post here.




1. Adding defenses to FW (only) stations. Though anyone could dock because it's empire, station guns would shoot hostile militia, as well as neutrals who have negative standings with the sovereign faction.

The station would also shoot any neutrals with an aggression timer of any kind against the sovereign party, as well as any neutrals providing logistics to the hostile party. (ie: if a neutral gang shows up and starts shooting the sovereigns who live there, the station will defensively shoot back, and hostile faction militia could not easily get around the station's defenses by parking neutral logis outside.)

2. The sovereign party would be the only ones with access to agents. (obviously)

3. The station offers free (or hugely reduced) medical clones to sovereign militia members. In addition, repair bills for the sovereign holding party are significantly reduced.

Hostile militia pays more for repairs and clones then normal, or are heavily taxed in some way.

Neutrals pay the same as before.



It's not perfect, but I think this solution accomplishes the following things:

1. It's simple and makes sense. If you shoot the owners of the station, or at war with them the station shoots at you. This would be an easy concept/mechanic for new players to grasp and understand.
2. It doesn't hurt neutrals, but it offers benefits for people living in that station to be in militia.
3. It offers consequences for losing sovereignty. Higher prices, loss of agents, and having to deal with station guns, etc.
4. It impacts pvpers and plexers as well as mission runners. Loss of agents alone isn't enough.
5. It offers multiple reasons for militia to take systems --whether they actively want to 'move in' or live in that system, or simply deal a financial blow to their enemy.


Thoughts?

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

SyntheticSins
Wraithguard.
The Wraithguard.
#17 - 2012-04-08 16:17:35 UTC
I think it's a good idea. I've never done faction warfare myself and I've been quite interested in it, just one of the many aspects of the game I've yet to divulge into yet. Although to think of it, it would make things brutally challenging and both sides would have to push harder, which is nice. :]

Glad to see you're still flyin' and kickin' Susan, NI4NI says Hi.
SigmaPi
Space Men
#18 - 2012-04-08 21:16:58 UTC
Susan, I flagged your posts as too awesome for this forum.

Seriously, why can't we have something like this? I like all of it and it doesn't 'force' anyone into a style they don't like - if you enjoy the gurrila style of fighting, then stick with it - the big fights happen regardless, already - just play how you want and make any system work for you.

I personally like these ideas, especially the benefits to stations you own and consequences for losing them. + another 1.
Zverofaust
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-04-09 00:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Zverofaust
The only good idea contained in this thread is having FW agents in space, and only because it would make getting missions easier without the need to dock.

I'm not sure but it seems you're implying all stations in any particular FW system will be locked off to anyone but the owning militia. This is ******** x1000. It would instantly send thousands of players into homelessness, severely **** up pretty much every aspect of the game outside Empire and doesn't make any logical sense.

A far more sensible idea would be to replace the current Bunker with a special FW-oriented "Garrison Outpost" that only the owning militia can dock in. This replaces a stupid worthless piece of **** structure with something with viable benefits without causing an uproarous calamity to the thousands of non-FW players who live in lowsec.
Tri Vetra
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2012-04-09 00:53:39 UTC
these suggestions are pretty bad and those that are not are just copies of what ccp announced at fanfest
12Next page