These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare LP/PvP Balance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mnemic001
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#1 - 2013-03-19 19:36:00 UTC
For so long there has in fact been an emphisis on how much PvE influences the faction warfare LP store. I have... i believe... a solution to how to keep both the PvPers and the PvE farmers happy. I may of mentioned something similer before however i think this would in fact make FW amazing both in PvP and PvE.

How? You Cry.

I will tell you...

When a winning side has got to takeing a certain amount of space their should be deductions to the amound of LP they can gain from plex's and it should take longer to take plexs BUT get a bonus for LP in mission runs. While the loosing side gets bonus LP for plex's and it takes less time to capture a plex's BUT gets a deduction in LP for MISSIONS. (hence giving them an incentive to fight back and a reason to plex)

For example
50% - 50% (No plex time increase or LP increase/decrease for either missions or plex's)

25% - 75% (Plex time increase (+50%) Plex LP decrease (-50%) to the winning side) 2% increase in time & 2% deductionin in LP per percentage of faction warfare control. But get's a (50% INCREASE in loyalty points in fw missions). What does this achieve? Stops the farmers plexing for money and start running missions for money instead which does not have an influence on FW control, it also means that the PvPers have a chance to make money no matter what their situation. Were as the looseing side will get.(based on 25% - 75%)
Plex time decrease (-50%) Plex LP increase (+50%) to the looseing side, each percent of space loss gets a 2% benefit up to 50% maximum. (A DEDUCTION in fw missions to the looseing side is implemented, in this case -50%, double in proportion with fw space lost which is 2% for every 1% space lost) This encourages people to plex because they are makeing money for it because they are looseing and discourages mission runs as it makes less money.

To put it simply, this means the winning side would want to mission more, while the looseing side would want to plex more. BUT both sides are happy because they can make money and continue to make money or ... PvP.


This is a way Faction warfare stabability could be sustained.
Takanuro
Eve Faction Trade Exchange
#2 - 2013-03-19 20:49:55 UTC
Mnemic001 wrote:
For so long there has in fact been an emphisis on how much PvE influences the faction warfare LP store. I have... i believe... a solution to how to keep both the PvPers and the PvE farmers happy. I may of mentioned something similer before however i think this would in fact make FW amazing both in PvP and PvE.

How? You Cry.

I will tell you...

When a winning side has got to takeing a certain amount of space their should be deductions to the amound of LP they can gain from plex's and it should take longer to take plexs BUT get a bonus for LP in mission runs. While the loosing side gets bonus LP for plex's and it takes less time to capture a plex's BUT gets a deduction in LP for MISSIONS. (hence giving them an incentive to fight back and a reason to plex)

For example
50% - 50% (No plex time increase or LP increase/decrease for either missions or plex's)

25% - 75% (Plex time increase (+50%) Plex LP decrease (-50%) to the winning side) 2% increase in time & 2% deductionin in LP per percentage of faction warfare control. But get's a (50% INCREASE in loyalty points in fw missions). What does this achieve? Stops the farmers plexing for money and start running missions for money instead which does not have an influence on FW control, it also means that the PvPers have a chance to make money no matter what their situation. Were as the looseing side will get.(based on 25% - 75%)
Plex time decrease (-50%) Plex LP increase (+50%) to the looseing side, each percent of space loss gets a 2% benefit up to 50% maximum. (A DEDUCTION in fw missions to the looseing side is implemented, in this case -50%, double in proportion with fw space lost which is 2% for every 1% space lost) This encourages people to plex because they are makeing money for it because they are looseing and discourages mission runs as it makes less money.

To put it simply, this means the winning side would want to mission more, while the looseing side would want to plex more. BUT both sides are happy because they can make money and continue to make money or ... PvP.


This is a way Faction warfare stabability could be sustained.


Could lead to wild swings in WZ control if farming groups kept flipping the LP earner from one side to other, but something needs to be done as this situation where the more you PVP the faster you lose the war is illogical.

Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
Luc Chastot
#3 - 2013-03-19 21:03:46 UTC
If you ask me, pvp kills should add to the control of a system based on the total isk destroyed, only when defending.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#4 - 2013-03-19 21:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sura Sadiva
Mnemic001 wrote:

To put it simply, this means the winning side would want to mission more, while the looseing side would want to plex more. BUT both sides are happy because they can make money and continue to make money or ... PvP.

This is a way Faction warfare stabability could be sustained.


But is already designed in that way. Only it's implicit:

- the winning side has less systems to plex.

- Plexes are a limited resource spawning by a timer: more systems you control = less spawning points avaiable.

- Winning side have to travel more and have to compete for plexes with other of his own side.

- Missions are a pure income source: paid better then plex but have no influence on the zone control. So one prefer running mission when doesn't need VP.

- The winning side has generally more agents/misison hub avaiable

- Missions are an unlimited spawn and don't have to compete or share with friendly to take them
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-03-19 21:22:02 UTC
Remove FW LP.Smile
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#6 - 2013-03-19 21:56:20 UTC
LP is fine as far as I'm concerned. I would just make Tier 1 regular payout and tweak the numbers a bit. Farmers will always farm, but PvPers can still get their income.
Mnemic001
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#7 - 2013-03-19 22:45:47 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Mnemic001 wrote:

To put it simply, this means the winning side would want to mission more, while the looseing side would want to plex more. BUT both sides are happy because they can make money and continue to make money or ... PvP.

This is a way Faction warfare stabability could be sustained.


But is already designed in that way. Only it's implicit:

- the winning side has less systems to plex.

- Plexes are a limited resource spawning by a timer: more systems you control = less spawning points avaiable.

- Winning side have to travel more and have to compete for plexes with other of his own side.

- Missions are a pure income source: paid better then plex but have no influence on the zone control. So one prefer running mission when doesn't need VP.

- The winning side has generally more agents/misison hub avaiable

- Missions are an unlimited spawn and don't have to compete or share with friendly to take them


I would dissagree.... the system allows the winning side to make billions of isk, while the looseing side struggles to find the money to fit a t1 maller. The system in which now exists , it is actually sustainable for one side to keep it like that and keep the money going while the looseing side actually has no incentive to fight back at all. Im not running down a plex for 20 mins to get 5-9k lp.... thats like 1 hours work just to get a few slicers.... i could plex for 10 hours not to get anywere because all the plexing ults are in the minmitar making billions... so my work is rapidly undone, after a log for a few hours.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#8 - 2013-03-20 02:44:38 UTC
Mnemic001 wrote:
I would dissagree.... the system allows the winning side to make billions of isk, while the looseing side struggles to find the money to fit a t1 maller.


Omg, this again...

These thread repeats every time Amarr drops to T1. Till 2 weeks ago Minmatar was at T1 and everything was fine and nobody was complaining for this, we cannot adapt game mechanics every 2 weeks to match Amarr militia farming needs.

So what? the loosing side should be rewarded for loosing? this would be the incentive to fight? In terms of resources: the loosing side already have (let's say) 100 systems spawning pleexes for them, the winning side can coount only on 10 systems spawning plexes. It's balanced, cause leave more room for the loosing side to offensive plexing and shift the warzone control again.

Would you give not only more plexes to the loosing side but also making them more profittable?

Talking only about economic: more a faction capture more become convenient to do missions instead of plexes.

And will be balanced even when (in 2 weeks) minmatarr will be again at T1 ans Amarr again at T3/4.
Croowdrio
Astrometric Aggression
#9 - 2013-04-25 17:56:43 UTC
Sura Sadiva wrote:
Mnemic001 wrote:
I would dissagree.... the system allows the winning side to make billions of isk, while the looseing side struggles to find the money to fit a t1 maller.


Omg, this again...

These thread repeats every time Amarr drops to T1. Till 2 weeks ago Minmatar was at T1 and everything was fine and nobody was complaining for this, we cannot adapt game mechanics every 2 weeks to match Amarr militia farming needs.

So what? the loosing side should be rewarded for loosing? this would be the incentive to fight? In terms of resources: the loosing side already have (let's say) 100 systems spawning pleexes for them, the winning side can coount only on 10 systems spawning plexes. It's balanced, cause leave more room for the loosing side to offensive plexing and shift the warzone control again.

Would you give not only more plexes to the loosing side but also making them more profittable?

Talking only about economic: more a faction capture more become convenient to do missions instead of plexes.

And will be balanced even when (in 2 weeks) minmatarr will be again at T1 ans Amarr again at T3/4.




No. The point is the Amarrians don't get as much stuff so you can't push back. Right now Amarrians are at T1 and Minnies at T4 - T5. There isn't much point in factional warfare if you just lose all the time. You can't take back systems because the other side has so much power. I know if it is a war one side loses and the other wins but in eve it is different.