These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Events and Gatherings Archive

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Fanfest 2012 Breaking News: Factional Warfare

First post
Author
CCP Navigator
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2012-03-23 13:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.

• First in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.

• We then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.

• After that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.

• We also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.

• We approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.

• We talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.

• Lack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.

• The EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.
Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#2 - 2012-03-23 14:17:16 UTC
please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done.

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

Elmanketticks
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-03-23 14:18:20 UTC
CCP Navigator wrote:
This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.

...
• We then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
...


Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole?

If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills!

The State will not fall. Join us. Fight. Conquer.

edit: disregard that, the state has fallen.

Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-03-23 14:32:43 UTC
FW will become interesting if some conditions are met:

1. There must be something to gain from system control, highsec systems should be affected
2. There is competittion between militias and between militias and the general public over resources
3. Pirate militias should be added to FW; their alignment should not be decided a priori so that their players can decide who to fight against and who to help.

Moreover players should be given more decisional power over politics; possibly CCP could hire someone to manage every faction to make FW like a persistent live event.



Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#5 - 2012-03-23 14:36:27 UTC
thanks. sounds very reasonable so far. Would be a great set of improvements. (and it would improve gameplay, e.g reduce docking games and more)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

mentalkiller
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2012-03-23 14:40:40 UTC
I don't even know what factional warfare is.
All I know is that eveonline lacks consensual PVP or at least a place where you could go and have PVP for sure, and not camp a gate or wait for something to happen.

/mentalKiller

darmwand
Repo.
#7 - 2012-03-23 14:42:22 UTC
mentalkiller wrote:
I don't even know what factional warfare is.
All I know is that eveonline lacks consensual PVP or at least a place where you could go and have PVP for sure, and not camp a gate or wait for something to happen.


Maybe try RvB?

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."

Sentinel Mantik
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-03-23 14:49:24 UTC
I participated in FW for about a month.

I hoped it would be more into Lore then just as it is now. I would like to see pilots getting boni to ships of the faction they are fighting for when they are in one of the fw-systems. I would like to see Amarr-Militia-Pilots flying Amarr hulls against Minmatar in their hulls

Minmatar 4 life

German player.

Kimo Khan
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#9 - 2012-03-23 14:52:20 UTC
Also add that people cannot join a Faction corp or stay in a Faction corp unless they as individuals meet the qualifications. Saw way too many people who kept jumping in and out of fake corps just to spy on militia. They were like -10 faction standing towards our militia and every 7 days when the corp they were in could no longer keep them due to their status, they would leave and then re-join.

If you want to hunt other faction, just join the proper faction and come hunt. If you want to spy then at least use an alt who has proper standing, but corp jumping is really lame.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-03-23 14:53:36 UTC
CCP Navigator wrote:
Words in bold below are quotes.



• First in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.


Awesome do this! Don't listen to the haters. This is going to make a huge difference in giving meaning to system control and into organically creating a front line in the battlefield with out forcing another mechanic into the system.

Cyno-Jammer, I don't see a way this won't be Meta-gamed and add grief. If it is implemented it should be done for the Highest LP investment and for only very limited times, 30 minutes or less.


• We then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.

I will be collecting my data-cores soon.

If you remove the passive part of the current mechanic then there should be an optional respec for those of us who only trained those skills for the passive income. If you only change the balance of the passive income then I don't think I should get a refund.

• After that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.


This absolutely should work on a scale of diminishing returns.

I also think that as your side loses more and more systems the NPC's in your remaining system should be more active as they become more concentrated in their defense. And you should never be able to run missions in a system your faction controls.

• We also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.

This change is just elegant and makes sense. Also would be nice to not to have to bring target painters to shot a structure.

• We approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.

Like these ideas.

In terms of LP rewards, would like to see it balanced so that PvP gives the most LP, then capturing plexes, and lastly mission running.

• We talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.

This should be balanced dynamically tied to the conversion value of LP on the market and in such a way as PvP offers the best way in Faction Warfare to earn LP.

• Lack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.

I think the idea behind initially hiding the real values of what it takes in victory points to make a system vulnerable had some merit, at this point these factors should be made completely transparent. This will have the effect of letting the militias know where it is easiest to find fights. And with the added consequences should balance itself. As in knowing whats going on and where fighting is happening will have more meaning and inform player decisions.

• The EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.

I think to start Dust should only effect how fast a system is taken, but after a while it could be made a percentage of what is necessary to take a system, never to exceed 50%.

In the far future you could anchor all the IHUBs on the first planet in a system or a Dust fightable asteroid near the sun, where they could then even help shoot it.


I think system swapping happens way to fast now. Should happen over the course of 2-7 days. Also there should be a lag of 30 minutes to a couple hours once a system becomes vulnerable before you are able to shot the IHUB. Long enough that those online can muster some defense, but not enough to encourage 0.0 blob warfare.

When is the devblog coming? When with this be on Singularity? And when are we likely to start to see these changes?

Glad to see meaningful changes happening. Keep up the "good" work! ( will take away the quotes if it works)
Steve Celeste
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-03-23 15:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Celeste
Hey FW guys we heard you hate sov warfare, so we put some of it into your FW so you can ragequit while you selfdestruct.
Phione
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-03-23 15:08:55 UTC
Yes, Glad it is finally being acknowledged as being incomplete......

As long as the Reward is equal or greater to the sacrifice of being in FW (as well as cannont be farmed), we should have a win, win.

If you can't justify being in FW....Then your job is still not done....
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#13 - 2012-03-23 15:13:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
I'll be keeping an eye on all the Faction Warfare changes as they are revealed, no doubt many of the fans that are there right now have more details to share than were listed in the OP here. I'll wait a day or so before really posting anything substantial, just so I can soak it all in and get the lay of the land and have a chance to speak with the community.

If you have pressing concerns about the changes here, email me right away, and I'll start collecting all the notes I receive on the subject. If you're THERE at fanfest right now and have more details to share than are listed here, send me anything you have. I'm very limited being stateside, all I have at the moment are some vague ideas and few things I heard over twitter, so by all means, send me your thoughts!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Indeterminacy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-03-23 15:15:23 UTC
mentalkiller wrote:
eveonline lacks consensual PVP


nope.jpg

If you can't find consensual PVP you're in the wrong corp/alliance and or wrong part of space.
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-03-23 15:21:41 UTC
All the ideas mentioned in the original post sound great, especially denying docking access in enemy space.
It all depends on the details of how it's implemented though.
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#16 - 2012-03-23 15:24:38 UTC
Hi,

There was a question asked during this fanfest how FW can affect empire space in high sec,

especially towards capsuleer pilots that are flying in said empire space (hisec) of course.


My thought was why not give FW players the ability to construct Super jump gates that instead of jumping one system,

CAN JUMP ONE REGIONBear

those that are involved in FW or capsuleers who show they are sympathetic toward a certain faction can use them.



Reasons why Super gates should be made:

- science & industry; capsuleers have acces to technology normal npc's just don't have.
In the latest eve book concord even doesn't like the use of tech 3 in their supervised space because of its origins are suspect.

It will add a nice sink where LP's, isk and materials can be invested for convenience purposes and the building sites can be another great source for battlegrounds.

Empires want to get an edge on other empires, and if they can deny they are themselves involved in the constructing of these supergates by hiding behind their militia, their agenda can still be served.

- logistics; moving armies across a battlefield is a logistical nightmare.

With the use of railroads and autobahns (germany) 20th centaury goverments had a better way to move their armies internallyacross their space and giving them a strategic edge.

Capsuleers that aren't active in FW can still be sympathetic to the cause by either contributing into the building pot (its a massive enterprise) or by increasing their faction status above a certain level or plenty of other ways that might increase the access through role playing opportunities or what not.

- People might say this convenience will be an end towards time sink, by reducing travelling time somewhat.
(mind the placement of one Super gate per region only)

But you have to remember how this game is setup, its not a F2P game where time sinks are important to keep you playing so the company has more time to sell you stuff.


Thank you CCP for EveTV and going in the right direction again.



Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#17 - 2012-03-23 15:35:16 UTC
Elmanketticks wrote:
CCP Navigator wrote:
This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.

...
• We then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
...


Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole?

If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills!


then donate your stacks of passive income together with the skillpoints.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Peri Helion
Omega Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
#18 - 2012-03-23 16:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Peri Helion
Ciar Meara wrote:
Elmanketticks wrote:
CCP Navigator wrote:
This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.

...
• We then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.
...


Are you saying that the R&D agents won't provide the amount of RP/day and in the process fewer datacores in the future? Or does that mean you're planning to remove the passive income possibility completely by removing R&D agents as a whole?

If either is the case, I expect compensation in form of skill points for the then useless r&d skills!


then donate your stacks of passive income together with the skillpoints.


What staks? A whole month of passive income on my one toon with all skills at 4 is about 60m isk. I could make more than that in about 2 or 3 lvl 4 missions..

If I took all skils to 5 (another 75 days) I would be making about 82m per toon which I could make in about 3 or 4 lvl 4 missions.

Lets face it - datacores was a POOR substitute for those who really invested in these skills back in the T2 Lottery days. Removing them now would be an insult to injury.
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#19 - 2012-03-23 16:42:35 UTC
1. The stations we can dock in...are these original systems that are considered 'Amarr' or 'Minmatar' in the current sense, or would it be tied to what systems we have sovereignty in? Right now, you can swap who 'has' the system in less than a day...does that mean that during a timezone I don't play, I could lose access to my assets?
Will we still be able to dock in none FW related stations within system? Will non FW people be able to dock in FW related stations?

2. "Upgrade their captured system" Upgrade it to/for what? It's not like we carebear in a warzone that much. ::gasp:: Then...does this mean that there will be a way to prevent none FW pilots in? Because it seems unfare that we can upgrade a system only to have neutrals dock and use the system beyond our control. We can't bubble gates or really 'own' the system in the sense that you can in nullsec...so what's to keep people from taking advantage of the work of the FW pilots?
Only thing I can see useful in this is ability to cyno jam a system. But...I'm not sure even that would be that useful...except to PL if they join FW and cyno jas Amamake to keep the Smurfsbrigade from downing another one of their titans....

3. What's a data core again? I'm at war. I want to buy data cores...why? IS it something shiny I can put on a ship?

4. Adjusting prices based on how well you are doing....what determines how well you are doing? How many systems you own? Or how many pvp kills.....? What if one militia is plex heavy doers and another is pvp heavy doers? Is this being thought through?

5. "For consistency reasons with null-security space" ....because we've made it so clear to you that we want to be just like null security space. ::angry face::

6. Infrastructure Hubs...just a name change or mechanics change to go with it? I guess it would be confusing if there were two items in-game named Infrastructure Hub that were completely different....(null-sec vs FW)
Who's lp is gonna pay? Cause I aint gonna give none of my lp...I'd rather buy SFIs then some upgrade on a hub thingy any day.

7. LP for Plexing and increased LP for PVP based on ship/mods --Yes, indeed. A common sense fix. ;)

8. More visibility, leader boards ....hmmm....

9. EVE complex-DUST matches....say huh?


www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

Pram Tet Ruins
Perkone
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-03-23 17:11:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pram Tet Ruins
I am a new player. I decided to go down the datacore road for passive income. Does this mean I should stop? And, if so, thanks for nothing CCP, you've ruined my first few weeks. I thought the goal was to keep paying accounts these days?
123Next pageLast page