These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Implement FW station occupancy and sentry gun fire
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#1 - 2011-12-05 04:54:36 UTC
Many of the militias have been crying out for more meaning in holding Sov, many rightfully feel that the whole war is nothing more than an arbitrary war dec. Everyone wants consequence to ownership, so here's what I propose:

1) Switch faction ownership of stations in systems that are lost to enemy factions. Auga has, for example, a Tribal Liberation Force station. Should the Amarr invade and seize Auga via plexing, that station should be renamed "24th Imperial Crusade Occupied Logistics Support" or something along those lines. The architecture of the station might, or might not be flipped in accordance to CCP's judgement on whether it would realistically be dismantled and replaced, or simply occupied by enemy troops.

2) Have enemy stations fire upon the opposing station, much like GCC. It currently makes no sense that I, a soldier in the Tribal Liberation Force, can hang outside a station run by the 24th Imperial Crusade, and while the capsuleers will fire away, the station owners seemingly don't care. This creates a "safe zone" for owners of a system, and adds consequences to system loss.

Docking / undocking games are really lame, and this would quash station camps amongst the militias (which noobs and vets alike hate), and force the fighting back out into the plexes CCP designed for them, that are now spawning round the clock.

All this requires is enabling a name change on stations, and a guns-on AI against enemy faction members. Two simple programming fixes, MUCH meaning and value to holding territory. Some militia advocates the banning of enemy docking at stations, but this would unfairly punish the new players FW is designed to attract, who would be deeply frustrated if they didnt personally have the ability to haul out and move their stuff safely if it were locked out of a station. With station guns being the consequence, they could still undock and warp away with a Z-mark if needed.

Thought? Feedback? Support for this proposal? I think this is a great "bang for your buck" fix that would have immediate ramifications and give militia members a reason to fight round the clock in defense of the systems they love.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2011-12-05 05:10:43 UTC
I support this changes and Hans Jagerblitzen faction warfare cause.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#3 - 2011-12-05 06:20:55 UTC
Thanks! I appreciate it. Now admittedly, my timing of this is a bit late as they are on the way to the summit, but I wanted to throw it down here for the record if nothing else. If feedback is positive, maybe the next round of talks or the next CSM can pick it up if it doesn't get brought up over the next few days. I also don't know if the strict two-week rule is still in effect regarding proposals.

I hope its still useful to the CSM or CCP Dev's, either way!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#4 - 2011-12-05 07:42:41 UTC
I support these changes.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#5 - 2011-12-05 15:22:15 UTC

Hans

I like it in general but in you don't explain what will happen to the agents. 1) the agents for tribal liberation force stay in the station in auga even though it is now a 24th station?? or would 2)they become inaccessible or 3) be replaced with agents for the 24th?

I think 2 or 3 would be a bit too harsh.

Perhaps we could have a system where the station guns will fire on the enemy if 1)its your station and 2) you have sov. If the enemy gains sov in that system the station guns will no longer fire but it will remain your station. So the 24th station in huola would fire on minmatar if amarr keep sov. However if minmatar gains sov there is no station gun firing.

Also I have to say although I like the idea, its very minor/superficial and doesn't really address the substantive problems with fw plexing.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hwong Jian
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-12-05 15:57:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hwong Jian
I agree with all of your proposals, except for the docking rights. Faction Warfare needs something that separates it from the rest of EVE. Something that makes it unique. But, at the same time, Low Sec (specifically Faction Warfare) should also incorporate the aspects of EVE as a whole.

Now, some people would say that not allowing people to dock in enemy stations is too much Null Sec. But, if docking rights shifted based on control of the system, imagine the dynamic that would add.

Low Sec staging grounds could be lost. Access to mission NPCs could be lost. Guns in your own systems could turn against you.

That, to me, seems like it would increase the need to plex, offensively and defensively.

And, since all militias have (if they don't, CCP needs to add them) an FW station or two in High Sec, you can never completely lose access to missions. You just have a lot less options.

But, since that would make only certain systems "worth" capturing, add in a "border" check. If you don't control an adjacent system, you can't capture the current system. If you lose control of all adjacent systems, timers in the "cut off" system are halved.

Congratulations. You have just made an active battlefield, with fronts, strategic approaches, placed hardships on your enemies by denying them their systems, and pushed a majority of fighting into plexes.

Gate guns, however, should never get involved in militia fights. That would give defenders an unfair advantage. Gate camping is almost as bad as station camping.

Faction Warfare becomes unique, pvp-oriented, mission-driven, and yet is still something the casual and hardcore alike can participate in. And, all you need is a T1 frigate to get started.

Couple that with my proposed changes to FW missioning and you've overhauled the entire system and made it something truly special.

Eh?

EDIT: And make sure to give a two-week notice (minimum) before implementing the "no docking in enemy stations" rule. It gives people time to move their stuff. Otherwise, they'll have to invade. Pirate Or drop militia for a few days to get their trapped ships out. Twisted

EDIT 2: This would probably require a new militia-specific channel for enemy activity alerts. Notification of systems when someone triggers a plex button. Something that people could close if they wanted to, was a permanent channel so they could get back into it, and probably shouldn't be allowed to talk in because it would get too spammy and people wouldn't notice alerts.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#7 - 2011-12-05 16:28:56 UTC
Cearain wrote:

Perhaps we could have a system where the station guns will fire on the enemy if 1)its your station and 2) you have sov. If the enemy gains sov in that system the station guns will no longer fire but it will remain your station. So the 24th station in huola would fire on minmatar if amarr keep sov. However if minmatar gains sov there is no station gun firing.

Also I have to say although I like the idea, its very minor/superficial and doesn't really address the substantive problems with fw plexing.


This, to me, would be an acceptable solution to the Agent issue that rightfully needs to be addressed. Admittedly that was an oversight I should have considered in my initial proposal. CCP may have an even more elegant solution, but in general, station guns seem like an easy-to-implement and yet impactful change that could push a lot of fighting out into the field where it belongs.

And yes, this is absolutely a superficial change. But at this point, CCP seems to be pursuing the fixes and updates in order of hours needed to complete them, meaning the easy stuff like this gets hit first and more sweeping overhauls get postponed till they can receive further attention.

Because of that prioritization, I'm trying to make sure as much of the "low-hanging fruit" is elevated to the CSM level as quickly as possible, because I really believe that even a handful of small updates like this will mean a lot to the players and keep them around and fighting and most importantly (for CCP's sake), continuing their subscriptions.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Draco Rosso
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-12-05 16:55:51 UTC
Take back Faction Warfare!!!!!
/Signed
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2011-12-05 16:59:31 UTC
Hwong Jian wrote:

EDIT: And make sure to give a two-week notice (minimum) before implementing the "no docking in enemy stations" rule. It gives people time to move their stuff. Otherwise, they'll have to invade. Pirate Or drop militia for a few days to get their trapped ships out. Twisted

EDIT 2: This would probably require a new militia-specific channel for enemy activity alerts. Notification of systems when someone triggers a plex button. Something that people could close if they wanted to, was a permanent channel so they could get back into it, and probably shouldn't be allowed to talk in because it would get too spammy and people wouldn't notice alerts.


I agree, FW should be unique and separate from other forms of gameplay in EvE, and that's precisely why such heavy handed solutions like "no docking at enemy stations" should be avoided, in my opinion. This is coming purely from my experience with corpmates that (despite all my warnings) have sold everything, rebought a personal fleet of ships out in nullsec, and lost sovereignty, only to limp home penniless without even a rifter to fly. Losing access to all of your stuffs is a major morale killer, and one I fear new players won't be able to handle.

Despite the fact that the militias are currently comprised of high skill point PvP enthusiasts, Faction Warfare traditionally served, and should continue to serve, the newer players as well. Frankly I'd much rather my recruits and friends focus on learning to fight, not learning to manage multiple hangars spread out to avoid a lockdown. Newer players focus on industry or PvP, but not both, so those delving into FW at a young age likely lack the transport needed to move groups of ships around, and will fit and store ships one at a time most likely. Even now, we face multiple front lines that are a half dozen systems apart, so even existing militia vets can find themselves without the right ship close enough by to make it when a mate hollers for help. I have concentrations of ships in at least 3 systems in lowsec, and still shuffle them around to fit the varying activity in different systems. Adding a greater shuffle on top of this would even further cut into my PvP time, which is precious to me.

I personally feel that Faction Warfare should be battle-focused, with a minimal emphasis placed on the logistical support that becomes crucial to living out in nullsec or wormhole spaced. I want mechanics that encourage more time fighting, not more time resupplying. Removing docking rights and locking players out from their hard-earned gear would indeed add consequence to the warzone, but I'm afraid it would simply eat into time that could be spent out engaging in the almighty pew instead.

This is just my personal take though, I'm certainly open to the consensus of the community should the majority disagree.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2011-12-05 16:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
*ACK* another double post. CCP, lets get these errors taken care of!! Forums kinda suck still.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#11 - 2011-12-05 17:12:06 UTC
Good idea, should be fairly easy to implement.

Side note (related):
Docking rights should never be removed in NPC stations, but what of changing what can be done once inside .. increase service fees or even prohibit use of services entirely in enemy occupied space.
Alternative option is to add a 3-4x multiplier to redock timer in hostile space .. not sure if it is separate from aggression timer though and gate jumping should not be hindered, so might not be possible off hand.
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
I support this changes and Hans Jagerblitzen faction warfare cause.

Oh please, he only started championing FW recently while some us have been at it since the war was just a few months old .. just sayin' Big smile
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2011-12-05 17:33:33 UTC
Hirana Yoshida
Oh please, he only started championing FW recently while some us have been at it since the war was just a few months old .. just sayin' [:=d wrote:



I can only advocate for and organize feedback for the gameplay that I know, and I've been a militia pilot since I started playing the game 2 years ago. I completely respect the fact that there are others that have been fighting long before me, and yes, my real push for change has come in the last 6 months especially. I wouldn't have bothered before that, being a new enough player to not feel like I had an informed enough opinion to make a difference.

The recent change in direction for CCP and the increased focus on "flying in space" improvements gives me hope that a window has finally opened up for us to make a serious bid to improve Faction Warfare, and I have no problem being a vocal, repetitive, outspoken supporter for the community and the game play feature that I love, regardless of my character age.

I've seen a lot of scattered posts throughout the forums over the last couple of years that never gained much traction, so I'm trying to capitalize on CCP's recent willingness to be more receptive to player feedback and organize the feedback into something more digestible and manageable so we can finally see some real change. I really believe the plexing timer fix is just the tip of the iceberg, should we keep this up. I can't do it alone though, I'm only one man, I need everyone's expert advice, and Hirana, yours is greatly appreciated.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#13 - 2011-12-05 17:36:00 UTC
Hwong Jian wrote:
I agree with all of your proposals, except for the docking rights. Faction Warfare needs something that separates it from the rest of EVE. Something that makes it unique. But, at the same time, Low Sec (specifically Faction Warfare) should also incorporate the aspects of EVE as a whole.

Now, some people would say that not allowing people to dock in enemy stations is too much Null Sec. But, if docking rights shifted based on control of the system, imagine the dynamic that would add.

Low Sec staging grounds could be lost. Access to mission NPCs could be lost. Guns in your own systems could turn against you.

That, to me, seems like it would increase the need to plex, offensively and defensively


And, since all militias have (if they don't, CCP needs to add them) an FW station or two in High Sec, you can never completely lose access to missions. You just have a lot less options.
..


Keep in mind that plexing as it currently works is pretty much a pve grind. So IMO it is a good we are not required to plex at this point.

Also keep in mind there are very few roleplayers in fw. So if one side is winning and therefore gets large advantages pilots will just join that side.

There are a few stations in high sec but very few. Typically people do missions by gathering allot of them and then running them after they travel. I think completely shutting these down would be an advantage that would indeed make people choose to join the winning side.

If they combined your idea with some mechanics that made it harder to capture more and more enemy systems (e.g., the losing side was allowed to bring larger ships into smaller plexes) I think we could have more dire consequences. But until then I think consequences that are clear but not huge are in order.

Hans proposal is really trying to walk that fine line of making things have some impact but not so much that every new player will just join the winning side.

Hwong Jian wrote:

EDIT 2: This would probably require a new militia-specific channel for enemy activity alerts. Notification of systems when someone triggers a plex button. Something that people could close if they wanted to, was a permanent channel so they could get back into it, and probably shouldn't be allowed to talk in because it would get too spammy and people wouldn't notice alerts.


This is something that would truly improve fw plexing. It has been proposed for years. However there used to be allot of carebears like ank who did fw and they liked to run the plexes without any pvp so the idea didn't get too far. I think the latest proposal that incorporates this idea is in my signature. Give it a like if you like it.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hwong Jian
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2011-12-05 17:38:40 UTC
Not to sound petty, Hans, but did you overlook the part where docking rights was tied to sovereignty? You don't lose access completely, only until you can retake the system (or leave FW temporarily, if you can't wait to get your ships back).

Plus, it would stimulate the "faction" economy by making militia LPs more valuable. And it gives capturing and defending plexes a purpose. People would come out in droves to repel invaders if the Caldari were taking plexes in Heyd.

Also, if plex timers were dynamically linked to the number of people (with a limit) it would make small-gang warfare more common, or more the point. Imagine if a plex took 60 minutes to capture solo, 30 minutes if you had 3 people, 15 minutes if you had 6 (within range of the button). Those numbers are purely arbitrary. But, what they accomplish is not. Now, one person has less of a chance to flip a system in a day, and having 60 people in one plex gives no more benefit than 6.

Faction Warfare is teeming with possibilities that I don't even think CCP has even begun to scratch the surface.

This is their opportunity to create a whole new type of PvP in the game that already has the greatest PvP of any MMO.

I really wish they would grasp that fact and run with it.
Hwong Jian
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-12-05 17:48:39 UTC
Cearain wrote:

There are a few stations in high sec but very few. Typically people do missions by gathering allot of them and then running them after they travel. I think completely shutting these down would be an advantage that would indeed make people choose to join the winning side.


If this change were combined with my proposed change to FW missions, it would be of limited to little benefit for people to switch sides. Also, some people love an underdog, challenge, good fight, being outnumbered, etc. So, you might have people switch to the losing side, as well.

Cearain wrote:

This is something that would truly improve fw plexing. It has been proposed for years. However there used to be allot of carebears like ank who did fw and they liked to run the plexes without any pvp so the idea didn't get too far. I think the latest proposal that incorporates this idea is in my signature. Give it a like if you like it.


Which is why we need CCP to give plexing a meaningful purpose, so that it is just as important to capture plexes as it is to defend them. When it has no purpose and no value, it will be done by only those that want to. No one felt the "need" to plex, so it became a PvE grind.

Make them strategic objectives that impact the map in some way and every member of Faction Warfare will have a vested interest in participating. Change the missions, too, and even the stealthbombing carebears will have to join in or lose some income.

EVE isn't supposed to be easy, and signing up to be at war with half of (the factions in) the universe damn sure should be harder than "normal" EVE.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#16 - 2011-12-05 17:53:26 UTC
Hwong Jian wrote:
....
Also, if plex timers were dynamically linked to the number of people (with a limit) it would make small-gang warfare more common, or more the point. Imagine if a plex took 60 minutes to capture solo, 30 minutes if you had 3 people, 15 minutes if you had 6 (within range of the button). Those numbers are purely arbitrary. But, what they accomplish is not. Now, one person has less of a chance to flip a system in a day, and having 60 people in one plex gives no more benefit than 6..


By making it so every pilot counts we can spread out the blobs. If you capture plexes faster by blobbing up then this will be just like null sec. If pilots are better used by spreading them out then blobbing won't work.

Its clear you understand this when you say 60 piolots gives no more benefit than 6.

However when you have 3 pilots able to capture plexes faster than one pilot then you will find that the larger side will just win. The side with fewer active pilots will not be able to spread out and capture plexes because their solo pilots and smaller fleets will take too long to capture plexes. The larger side will always have time to come with their numbers.

Hwong Jian wrote:
....
Faction Warfare is teeming with possibilities that I don't even think CCP has even begun to scratch the surface.

This is their opportunity to create a whole new type of PvP in the game that already has the greatest PvP of any MMO.

I really wish they would grasp that fact and run with it.



I couldn't agree more. FW should be the place for "frequent, quality, small scale pvp." CCP should focus on making that so.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#17 - 2011-12-05 17:58:36 UTC
Hwong Jian wrote:

Faction Warfare is teeming with possibilities that I don't even think CCP has even begun to scratch the surface.

This is their opportunity to create a whole new type of PvP in the game that already has the greatest PvP of any MMO.

I really wish they would grasp that fact and run with it.


Thanks Hwong, but no, i wasn't overlooking the part about docking rights and sovereignty. I understand everyone's stuff would be intact until they regained system control.

I'm just remembering back my early days, where it was simplest to manage by having a stack of ships in a common friendly militia "home base" (for us it was Auga 3rd) that also had some market function, making it easy to be prepared for a fight at all times. If I had suddenly been locked out of all my ships, and I was still in the stages of learning how to make a decent isk income to replace them all, i would have been deeply frustrated by not being able to access my hard-earned ships.

Even if I knew I could get them back eventually, not having any ships to use in the meantime (which I'd need to help my friends regain Sov) would have killed my interest in staying in Faction Warfare. I would have left, and not returned until I could afford to spread dozens of ships in every system as a precaution. Having pilots leave and rejoin Faction Warfare constantly just to move ships seems like a waste of time and breaks immersion. Everyone values their employment history, I don't see any advantage in encouraging corp-hopping simply to move ships.

One of my deep appreciations for Low Sec PvP life is that my stuff is secure. I know that if I've earned it, I can PvP in it when I log on. That security is one of the primary reasons I've refrained from joining a null sec alliance, where if I have a busy month with out-of-game activities I might log on to have lost it all. Having your items always accessible (even if you're being shot at on the way out the door) continues to be a huge draw for those of us who want "casual" PvP. I'd hate to see this go away, I just think there are other options (limiting station functions when docked is great) that don't disrupt a key advantage to living in Low Sec for the sake of adding an adrenaline boost when you're defending sovereignty.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hwong Jian
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-12-05 17:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Hwong Jian
I have no idea what thread to post this in, but I just had another idea. Purely cosmetic, but for plexes. (Note: This should NOT be added in until plexing is changed to be a pvp-related objective.)

MEDALS! AWARDS!

Specifically the following:

Conqueror: Capturing plexes/conquering an enemy system
Liberator: Capturing plexes/liberating a friendly system
Assault: Destroying X ships in offensive plexes
Defender: Destroying X ships in defensive plexes

Who doesn't love more bragging rights and chest beating?

Edit: And, Hans, it makes absolutely no sense to me why a State Protectorate station would allow Gallente or Minmatar to dock. That, specifically, is the problem I have with low sec docking rights.

I ******* hate the fact that more than a few Gallente pilots have carriers docked in Caldari FW stations.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#19 - 2011-12-05 18:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Hwong Jian wrote:
Cearain wrote:

There are a few stations in high sec but very few. Typically people do missions by gathering allot of them and then running them after they travel. I think completely shutting these down would be an advantage that would indeed make people choose to join the winning side.


If this change were combined with my proposed change to FW missions, it would be of limited to little benefit for people to switch sides. Also, some people love an underdog, challenge, good fight, being outnumbered, etc. So, you might have people switch to the losing side, as well.


Yes there is some truth here some will change sides. But even when fw was pretty much meaningless and not hitting us in the wallet the caldari had many many more pilots than the gallente when they were rolling through systems. In eve more people tend to choose the path that gives them more isk.

I am not sure your proposal would do much. Yes it limits the fw lp to those who do pvp which is good. But you won't be able to make as much isk if you are on the losing side even if you do as much pvp as anyone on the winning side because you will not be able to collect as many missions per mission run.

Cearain wrote:

This is something that would truly improve fw plexing. It has been proposed for years. However there used to be allot of carebears like ank who did fw and they liked to run the plexes without any pvp so the idea didn't get too far. I think the latest proposal that incorporates this idea is in my signature. Give it a like if you like it.


Hwong Jian wrote:

Which is why we need CCP to give plexing a meaningful purpose, so that it is just as important to capture plexes as it is to defend them. When it has no purpose and no value, it will be done by only those that want to. No one felt the "need" to plex, so it became a PvE grind.

...



Again I think you are right in part. However plexing is *mainly* a pve grind because there are allot of npcs in the plexs. This is why I don't bother doing plexes for the amarr. If they increase the consequences of plexing I still won't do them because I want to pvp.

If I do not fit my ship for pve the rats will eat through my tank. Then when an enemy or neutral comes to pvp I will either have to fight them with half my tank and npcs still hittting me/ or I will have to warp off.

If they don't want it to be pve then they should stop making it pve. Remove the npcs and give players notifications of plexes being entered. If they want to defend them then they know where to go. If they don't then they will lose it. Either way it will be pure pvp.

Leaving plexes up to the npcs is why fw plexing is, and always has been mainly pve.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#20 - 2011-12-05 18:41:36 UTC
Just a reminder everyone, the Assembly Hall is designed for obtaining support for specific proposals, while your feedback is greatly appreciated, lets keep this thread focused on the original proposal and any general discussion about Faction Warfare to the main Faction Warfare discussion thread, or feel free to post your proposals for separate ideas in their own threads.

Thanks guys, the more we stay organized in our response, the easier it is for the Dev's and CSM to sort through and digest.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
12Next page