These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: Factional Warfare

First post First post
Author
Mutnin
SQUIDS.
#61 - 2012-03-24 02:18:34 UTC
Vyktor Abyss wrote:
Completely disagree. No docking is an excellent and much needed mechanic.

Anyone complaining about their ships being 'locked away' has no ground to stand on tbh. You dont have to base on the front line, you can still contract 'locked out' ships etc for sale, use an alt to pick them up or just use a staging POS with corp hangars/ship arrays etc.

Station games play way too much a part in lowsec pvp. Hopefully this will pull some risk adverse pvpers off stations. It just makes more sense too. For example someone from Caldari militia undocking from an FDU station in Gallente occupancy space slaughtering members of the FDU then waiting out a timer to redock without any repercussions... I mean come on.

Would appreciate a full list of what other features the presentation covered as I missed half. Cheers.



You mean kinda like most Gallente corps live in Caldari stations in Caldari systems? Be careful what you ask for or all you Gals will be back to living in Heydieles.

I'm personally mixed as to the no docking in any station, not sure if I like it as an absolute being it will require you to work out of POS's to try and control a area for future attacks on the Sov.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2012-03-24 03:16:39 UTC
Hey I hope a dev is watching i have a good idea if this is the path you are going to go.

Quote:
"but want to make it separate from 0.0 politics
Remove "occupancy", and affect sovereignty instead. Larger consequence of taking systems."


We should be able to increase the sec of a system based on where the border is. The closer to an ammar system the lower the sec status of the system.

If you take over a ton of systems you can have a new 0.5 high sec system that used to be low sec. If ammar wants that system they have to take over the nearby systems, thus taking away factional warfare police from spawning when the systems sec status becomes below 0.5

Also this would make the war zone, in the middle, effectively 0.0 space. with a dynamic high sec battlefield , since FW members can always shoot each other, even in jita.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#63 - 2012-03-24 04:55:00 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
LP for PvP kills


This is going to be so farmed that it will boggle the imagination. (Witness the issues that TOR had with Ilum.)

Even if you do something like "first kill within 28 days gets full credit, 2nd gets 1/2, 3rd gets 1/4, etc", players *will* figure out how to get around that. They will form alt-corps who do nothing but trade kills for LP. Or they'll figure out which hulls / fits offer the most LP/ISK and do their kill trading in those ships.

LP should only be rewarded for obtaining objectives, which is easier to police / code / monitor / balance.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#64 - 2012-03-24 05:19:45 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Asthariye wrote:
...For that reason alone total denial of station access would be completely stupid. If a system can be flipped in 11 hours, you can lose access to all your stuff because you did something crazy like go to sleep. A human need for sleep should not mean loss of access to assets....

Total denial is pretty borked, but the beauty of having some sort of 'penalty' is that it will create a natural border/frontline as difficulty in reshipping replicates the greatest balancing tool when it comes to war - supply lines. It will still be possible to go deep but it will require a massive investment in manpower, ISK and time to do properly especially if opposed.

As for Arzad .. it was pretty much why I suggested having a non-aligned faction represented in the zones to give some sort of support for 'isolated' systems like that. Even if it was only services that were denied the closest friendly system for you is Vard bexyond stationless Ezz but if a SoE station were present in say Sifilar it could serve as forward refitting base for attacks on constellation/region.

PS: Yes I know you have a couple more in area, but used for examples sake. Smile



Why would you actually want to restrict most of the fighting to the front lines?

Most of the better fights happen out in the back waters precisely because you can set up partial bases in those systems.

Forcing everything to that arzad and kourm pipes will just mean more blobs. Do things that spread the fighting out more not narrow it down more. It can get dull fighting the same people in the same systems everyday.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#65 - 2012-03-24 05:29:56 UTC
Ok this may be a bad idea.

But the idea is that the areas we are fighting over are up for grabs right? So both sides will have some civilians on the ground secretly on their side.

So maybe higher ranking militia members will be able to use their connections in enemy systems (dock use services etc.) where as lower ranking militia won't. It gives benefit to ranks yet still allows for some consequences.

Perhaps the highest rated militia will be able to pull strings and dock anywhere. The middle ranks can dock anywhere as long as the system is "contested" at a certain level. Perhaps they won't be able to use all the staion services though.

This would all be arranged sort of in the background. People will therefore strive to get these ranks - which should only be achievable by plexxing.

Just some ideas.

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

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#66 - 2012-03-24 06:10:45 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
LP for PvP kills


This is going to be so farmed that it will boggle the imagination. (Witness the issues that TOR had with Ilum.)

Even if you do something like "first kill within 28 days gets full credit, 2nd gets 1/2, 3rd gets 1/4, etc", players *will* figure out how to get around that. They will form alt-corps who do nothing but trade kills for LP. Or they'll figure out which hulls / fits offer the most LP/ISK and do their kill trading in those ships.

LP should only be rewarded for obtaining objectives, which is easier to police / code / monitor / balance.



I respectfully disagree. This problem is easily solvable using the same criteria as insurance. As long as the ship destroyed is worth well over the value of the LP that is rewarded for that kill, it can't be farmed for isk.

As for multiple people whoring on a kill, I say split the LP payout based on the number of individuals on the killmail, or something along those lines. This discourages blobbing (not everyone gets nice payouts if swarm the enemy to death with numbers) and rewards small gang work.

Ultimately, its a simple math formula, but I don't see this as being farmed. Miltia pilots have been SCREAMING for direct PvP rewards (we hate to grind NPC's for just about any reason) and this one already exists in game, just in negligible amounts. This change would cut ratting and missioning straight out of the loop and allow pilots to engage in war around the clock and still have a way to pay for ship losses.

I believe this is one of the core fixes that CCP did get right in the package and I hope makes it to release.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#67 - 2012-03-24 07:49:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Little Brat wrote:
There should be docking consequences imposed on a sliding scale based on standings....

Goddess no, lets not give more options to standings abuses. The carefree AFK plexing that is possible by manipulating standings is enough for the best of us.
Additionally, you currently do not take standing hits for killing the enemy so as long a PvP'er remembers to vacate a plex prior to it capping and makes his ISK outside FW he can be serviced anywhere/anytime .. meaning the change becomes a nerf for plexers and mission-whores.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
....(even if it was a bit difficult to keep order at times P )[/i]

Take a litter of wolf cubs, starve them for three years and see what happens when you throw them a bone .. just be happy we are civilized folk you limit ourselves to sticking gum under chairs rather than setting them on fire Smile
Cearain wrote:
Why would you actually want to restrict most of the fighting to the front lines? ...

You mean beyond logic, history and tradition? Big smile

The good fights in the backwaters are not out of partial bases, but full fledged corp movements .. as in some system being HQ for a constellation/region. GF's are rare in those cases as you are likely to get blobbed by whatever corp it is seeing as they have majority of their pilots in area. It will still be "easily" doable by using POS (which are getting revamped also) or if feeling lucky by using the more predictable non-aligned stations I mentioned.
Remember that I am not using the fail 'no docking' concept, so it is a simple matter of ferrying fitted ships in or having some way to fit once there (POS or Carrier).

Strike teams operating far behind enemy lines simply do not (and should not) have access to instant and unlimited reinforcements, it goes against practically everything and doesn't add much in the way of gameplay.

At any rate, the idea was to offer a more sensible alternative to the far more restrictive 'no docking' brainfart that CCP presented
Lord Meriak
State Naval Academy
#68 - 2012-03-24 07:58:55 UTC
To show case when a system is about to flip, or is captured show it in CQ screen, that what Cq was said to be make information easier.


Eric Deloitte
The Flowing Penguins
#69 - 2012-03-24 09:11:38 UTC
I firstly would like to echo the sentiments against denial of docking.

From a story point of view it makes little sense that if the Amarr took Dal why would the TLF & Republic Fleet deny me docking rights, I'm fighting a war for them? For those that say it makes no sense to allow enemies to dock and use real world examples, you are forgetting that this isn't a real world war, this is a war sanctioned by Concord, who also sanction the neutrality of Empire Stations and stargates

It has the potential to reduce the amount of PvP and enjoyment of the game for all parties involved. As an example for the last few weeks there have been some massive running battles in Arzad. With both sides reshiping numerous times either through losses or because the fighting had moved to a new sized plex. If either side was denied docking rights at the station then these fights wouldn't have happened and I'm sure that this is a scenario repeated through the FW - Zones

Some ways of making system ownership matter could be:
Increased/ Reduced fees for services
Double or Halve the Office rental fees based on system ownership, in some key systems this could be a massive inducement to keep a system.
Beef up the station guns and make them fire on 'Enemy' aggressors, they wouldn't fire on every 'Enemy' just those aggressing members of the holding faction.
Increase/ Reduce the costs of running a tower, I know this is lifted directly from 0.0 but it could work
Possibly look at using some of the "incursion system effects" based on ownership, this would have to be carefully balanced though.
NPC navy patrols in the held system.

I'm not championing any particular one of these, but they are to illustrate there are many small ways of making ownership of a system matter.

I'm all for system occupancy having consequence, but denial of docking rights is a poor way of achieving this as essentially it will not make FW more challenging or rewarding or fun, just more inconvenient.

Acac Sunflyier
The Dysfunctionals
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2012-03-24 09:12:33 UTC
I really think they need to be adding pirate factions into this pdq. After all, there are tons of NPC 00 planets that could totally benefit from the dust link, and the faction warfare method to space.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#71 - 2012-03-24 09:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
[quote=CCP Ytterbium]LP for PvP kills[/quote

This is going to be so farmed that it will boggle the imagination. (Witness the issues that TOR had with Ilum.)

Even if you do something like "first kill within 28 days gets full credit, 2nd gets 1/2, 3rd gets 1/4, etc", players *will* figure out how to get around that. They will form alt-corps who do nothing but trade kills for LP. Or they'll figure out which hulls / fits offer the most LP/ISK and do their kill trading in those ships

LP should only be rewarded for obtaining objectives, which is easier to police / code / monitor / balance.


If the LP are worth less then the actual loss in equipment there's not much a point to farming them



  • Since there will always systems contested or not fully upgraded, non-FW caps can still travel trough. The only difference is that they'll have to travel through systems which are likely crawling with FW-people. I think this would be a nice balance of risk-vs-reward to 0.0 alliances taking a shortcut through empire to the other side of the galaxy

  • To prevent 'spies' from messing with system upgrades, control should be given to the person/corp/alliance that has contributed the most (measured by paid LP (or gained LP with Incursion-style FW).

  • There has to be some recognition or intangible reward for donating LP to a cause. I'd imagine else there is little point for the players that join a militia as individuals to donate LP (which is basically donating ISK to a cause, and EVE-players aren't know for their generosity

  • There really should be some reshuffling of stations belonging to the different Factions in the warzones. Maybe even a couple of jumpgates as well. These were all totally randomly placed and it shows, bausing some crippling, unfair and immersion-breaking situations. Inconvenienced non-FW players should just get a one-time voucher from Interbus giving them free NPC transport of their stuff to a system of their choice. "The galaxy changes, FW matters! deal with it!"

  • The idea to do something about the Datacore-ATM is a noble one, but they belong with the NPC research corporations, not in Faction Warfare. It would also mean involving a very unpredictable variable into trying to 'fix' FW, while the availability of datacores affacting almost every player. Fixing datacores deserves it own solution and should be in the hands of industrialists/researchers, not FW.

  • Good bonuses for claiming a system can be decreased cost to insure a ship, decreased price for clones, decreased market, refinery, customs. Cheap 'militia'-only implants. Cheap 'militia'-only ships (gives poor players something to fight in, but isn't worth much as a LP-kill). More and better NPC to lend assistance at gates and stations. NPC 'deathstar' POS to regroup (instead of safespot or station). I like the cyno as well, though I think that should be implemented in a later patch when everything else works as intended.

  • FW: Incursion style

  • I think there are better ways to control the sovereignity then simply 'bunker-busting' or payng LP (which feels ridiculously artificial) Using Incursion-style sites that need to be won would be a much better solution. It would be more dynamic and the missions could be easily diversified and expanded (maybe adding busting a bunker as one). Everyone running Vanguards knows the fun it can be to 'compete' for a site. Now imagine you can shoot the other fleet as well

  • Winning these 'FW-sites' and destroying enemy ships all add up to an Incursion-style bar that shows the balance between the two competing factions. If you make the bar slow enough, you fix the timezone problem. Adding a MOM-style NPC fleet at the end of the bar to be defeated to claim the system, puts a final speed-bump with a minimally required combined effort on finally claiming a system.

  • Claiming sites pays out LP in a manner similar to Incursion-sites, only with the added LP for destroyed enemy ships (modified by lost value). LP are ONLY to be paid out when a system is claimed for your side (though unpaid LP should be saved for the time your side claims it back). This will give players a very powerful incentive to go and claim systems, and focus on the ones heavily contested (more LP)

  • Blobbing on sites can be countered by exponentially lowering the LP-reward for showing up on a site with too many people (like Incursions) Maybe even invoking additional NPC backup (with player-style equipment and tactics like jamming, scrambling and RR) for the other side if it crosses a threshold of complete unfairness.

  • Curbstomping an weaker militia and then farming for LP becomes very unlikely. You can't earn LP in the systems you already own. And perhaps there could be an additional modifier that makes sure you get diminishing LP returns for every system your Faction holds.

  • The sites that pop up on the overview Incursion-style have max-size shipclasses and minimum fleetsizes (by NPC strength) to make sure there is a lot of variety in combat.

  • People losing a contest for a site should still be rewarded generously with LP (on top of the LP for destroying ships). Pitched battles like these, with measures in place to promote equally sized fleets,are likely to become VERY bloody. To prevent fleets from warping in and out, just to claim their 'losers' reward, just payout for the percentage they achieved the objective of the site (like destroying all enemy NPC, or time that a bunker was held)

Again: I think paying LP to claim is system is a inventive idea. But it has some problems. I think Incursion-style fighting for sites to claim a system by defeating the enemy MOM, is a much better way. Besides: Incursions has already proven that people like it, it has proved to be an effective way to crowd-source players into joining for a common goal and it could even fix some espionage problems.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Damar Rocarion
Nasranite Watch
#72 - 2012-03-24 11:15:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Damar Rocarion
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
I really think they need to be adding pirate factions into this pdq. After all, there are tons of NPC 00 planets that could totally benefit from the dust link, and the faction warfare method to space.


Pirate FW would be fun, however not all pirate factions are equal in this regard. If you compare station filled Stain (Sansha) or Curse (Angel) to Venal (Gurista) which has 7 station systems and Fountain where Serpentis sov is limited to 7 solar systems. And lets be honest, some of these stations are held by quite powerful people so adding pirate FW to this mix would be bit complicated. Something would need to be implemented that such pirate FW is actually even possible.

Alternatively, if CCP goes ahead with cynojammers for militia, they might be aiming for localisation. In this regard militias represent national military putting outlaw elements in check near the core worlds of the empire (FW are quite close to places like Jita, Amarr, Rens, Hek) unless said outlaws acquire "letters of Marque" (= join fw) which renders them unable to hit their own militia unless they want to bork their standings.

This leaves "outer regions" such as Molden Heath which could be left open for pirate FW (and pirate corps relying on cyno hotdrops) to mess about and occupy systems in low-sec, representing empires focusing on their core systems. Though in this case Caldari space does not really have such an area unless low-sec of Forge and Lonetrek is turned into one (this would at least require some new star-gates to dodge occasional high-sec systems).

For example, Blood Raider faction could occupy systems in Aridia. But who would they fight? What logic there would be regards to Evelore that Guristas would fly down to Aridia. So I quess it would be up to empire militias to police these outer regions too so local players could join Amarr militia and have something to fight without having to fly near Amamake for example (but cynojammers, etc. would not be involved in these regions).

Or alternatively pirate FW could not try to involve all factions and stick to something which sort of make sense in regards to galactic geography. This could probably mean Angel FW would fight Sansha FW in low-sec Derelik (i'd totally join this one btw) and Blood Raider FW would fight Serpentis FW in low-sec Aridia (pardon me if these groups are allied with each other and it makes no sense in regards to established fiction, I am not an expert).

Of course pirate FW would probably be quite lucrative option for many players since by logic they should be at war with every empire FW (plus get shot by npc navy in all high-sec systems). Of course the FW aspect would most likely take the backseat here since alternative is to get a free wardec against hundreds, if not thousands of people.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#73 - 2012-03-24 12:58:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
[
Cearain wrote:
Why would you actually want to restrict most of the fighting to the front lines? ...

You mean beyond logic, history and tradition? Big smile


Please tell me when in the history of combat involving warp gates, there were standard front lines as there were in world war 1?

If the player militias are powerfull enough to lock down systems they can. If the players can't do it I don't think ccp should do it for us just to force blob warfare on front lines (which by the way is the obvious result of forcing all the combat to a few choke points.)Fact is neither side has the forces to control these gates. If they did and they wanted to camp them they could but thatnkfully the current occupancy mechanics promote fights at plexes not camping system gates.

Veshta Yoshida wrote:
[[quote=Cearain]

The good fights in the backwaters are not out of partial bases, but full fledged corp movements .. as in some system being HQ for a constellation/region.



Speak for yourself. My corp just finished basing out of a back water system and we got a nice change of pace. I have like 4 sub bases in the faction war area. You should try it. Its allot more fun when you can reship close by, instead of having to go 15 jumps to get another destroyer or cruiser.

IMO this is what faction war should be about. Having lots of frequent fights throughout our fw area instead of just big blob fights on "front lines" like in the american civil war/null sec.

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

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-03-24 14:13:04 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Ok this may be a bad idea.

But the idea is that the areas we are fighting over are up for grabs right? So both sides will have some civilians on the ground secretly on their side.

So maybe higher ranking militia members will be able to use their connections in enemy systems (dock use services etc.) where as lower ranking militia won't. It gives benefit to ranks yet still allows for some consequences.

Perhaps the highest rated militia will be able to pull strings and dock anywhere. The middle ranks can dock anywhere as long as the system is "contested" at a certain level. Perhaps they won't be able to use all the staion services though.

This would all be arranged sort of in the background. People will therefore strive to get these ranks - which should only be achievable by plexxing.

Just some ideas.


Yes, this guy ccp, give him a job.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#75 - 2012-03-24 14:22:10 UTC
Locking out of stations is bad because it will just force MORE alts into the fw zones which we are pretty sick of anyway having to live in low sec.

thats why being locked out sucks, it just forces the use of another alt to get around another dumb mechanic, another knife in the back of low sec people - dont do it.

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#76 - 2012-03-24 16:59:19 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Little Brat wrote:
There should be docking consequences imposed on a sliding scale based on standings....

Goddess no, lets not give more options to standings abuses. .....



I meant to say beased on ranks not necessarilly standings. Do you think the ranks shoud remain completely worthless?

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

Criminal High
Doomheim
#77 - 2012-03-24 17:19:41 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
LP for PvP kills


This is going to be so farmed that it will boggle the imagination. (Witness the issues that TOR had with Ilum.)



this. just leave FW alone and kick the grumpy ol' burned-out veterans out of the game pls.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#78 - 2012-03-24 19:21:05 UTC
Criminal High wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
LP for PvP kills


This is going to be so farmed that it will boggle the imagination. (Witness the issues that TOR had with Ilum.)



this. just leave FW alone and kick the grumpy ol' burned-out veterans out of the game pls.



We already get this.

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

zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#79 - 2012-03-24 20:53:01 UTC
joining my comments from another thread into here:

<< ok sorry guys. i posted a whole heap of stuff into our corp forums and basically forgot that others might like to know what is going on

I'm at fanfest. i'm the guy with the yellow glasses speaking with the australian accent

as you can imaging i attended both the FW presentation and the Roundtable. I also managed to grab one of the devs this morning for 30secs

i've kind of gone bananas on this.

the background. all of this has happened because some people somewhere once said that their should be consequences to losing systems. cpp has taken this statement and turned it into the massive "what is wrong with faction warfare" item. i will try to state here clearly the difference between what i think/believe and what i said/know based on what i have seen and done last 2 days.


basically we're screwed and that this is pretty much developed. we were shown concept art on the LP point spending interfaces etc. it looks pretty far down the track of development. if you don't like it you need to say it here. they are watching the forums. they will do what they think people want. you have to tell them now. get everyone in FW to post here. EVERYONE

i think it's a really really bad idea and is going to turn eve fw into a job. you will log in each day and hope that the system that you're in hasn't been flipped while you were asleep and you have locked yourself out of your ships, corp hangers, medical facilities etc. you lose access to everything in the station (corp hangers anybody???). this in turn means that everyone starts keeping their ships in tuo or other nearby hi-sec systems and that has the massive impact of slowing down reships and making it harder to get and escalate fights. it means that people don't join fleets for pvp that also may involve system flipping, they join fleets because they HAVE to keep running plexes. this sucks

the idea is that each corp/player out of the goodness of their hearts, piles massive amounts of LP into "upgrading" systems they have capped to make them harder to re-cap and to eventually activate a cyno jammer. let me make it clear - corps and players have to spend THEIR LP into levelling up the systems......so instead of people using LP to get slicers with which they do some PVP and keep things rolling, they have to instead give it all up for the benefit of the faction. in reality, 1 or 2 corps and one or 2 players will care enough to do it a lot and it will not have much of an impact on anything apart from where we base our ships. this has monumental issues with other citizens of losec btw and massive repercussions for what might happen to fw. i'm sure that amarr doesn't want PL to join mims (for example) just so that they control the cyno jammer in make.

they said that all of this is still pretty fluid and need to look at a few things.
zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#80 - 2012-03-24 20:53:15 UTC
bunkers will change to ihubs (same as 0.0) which means they have bigger sig and can be hit better with caps and missile boats

they were also going to make LP for kills either incursion style in the fleet or on the killmail (i hope in the fleet). they were looking at the mechanics of this. it is my hope that they have a certain level of LP for each ship class and enemy pilot rank and then whatever this value is worth, it is split up to the members of the fleet (this encourages more, smaller gangs to fly and roam and less 32 BS killing 1 rifter fleets)

i told them in no uncertain terms that we are fw becuase we want to be and probably most of us have been to 0.0 and hate it so came into FW

my idea with the cyno jamming (i think it could be a really good combat tool btw) is this. anybody can trade a fairly massive amount of FACTION LP in to receive a data-chip or activation key. this can be traded, sold, killed in a cargo bay, anything. next to every faction warfare i-hub is a cyno jammer. sitting there in space. happy as you like. If your faction holds the system sov, anybody in your faction can warp to the cyno jammer, insert the LP bought microchip and fire the cyno jammer. in 60mins or DT the cyno jammer turns off. this increases the value of system ownership, gives us something juicy to see on killmails, is really simple, means we dont really really upset other losec citizens and gives us another tool to bring back the days of 60 vs 60 bs fites in kourm/auga. most importantly it is easy to implement and communicate rather than escalating levels of sov in losec???? wtf

next i said the station stuff is just crazy. just plain crazy although personally i can live with it (it's just like 0.0 mechanics where you lose a station you just trade all your stuff to a neutral alt or an alt you have in the enemy corp/alliance and get it all out). but it will SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the tempo of getting the bigger fights escalating. if you like station games this will screw you as well. all of a sudden everyone will have 5 guys in corp and 50 guys as neuts ready. it will seriously make it harder to get people to come into FW as the risk (or pain the bum anyway) goes up significantly

i pointed out that if they implement the changes it will cascade fail the smaller militias as people wont want to join the losing side as there will be too much money to make on data cores on the winning side. just like the alliance changes have really boosted the mims and basically cut the heart out of amarr in recent weeks

they said once the mechanics are sorted, in play and testing it will be possible to bring the pirate factions into the mix - things are being looked at so this works

on the avatar side they are looking at things like faction warfare medals, uniforms and accessories that can be purchased on the faction LP store and applied to your toon. they will look at ways to get the uniforms to update with ranks and stuff that you have earned in FW. no promises though.

i pointed out to them the broken issue of faction standing loss and then gaining it back being really hard because you've already gone through the promotions. this was new to them.

they were looking into rank having a boosting effect somehow on LP earns. this is good in principle.

they did think about control of the system has incursion style impacts on the systems e.g. better boosts etc, but at the moment they have a "realism" issue with these in incursions and didn't want to repeat the same mistake again, into FW. i agree with this.

i told them that everybody in the room knows that if ccp simply halved the payout of LP on faction missions, and gave us LP for every ship kill or plex we cap, that will fix 95% of the problems we have (not getting fights, making plexing valuable). if they did this right now, and then spent months working out whatever they want to do next, this would be the best approach to take. most people in the room like this and i got a pretty good round of applause for it.

theres probably a whole heap more that i will remember and add over the coming days etc.