These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liamn
Atrum Deus Vult
#241 - 2012-03-31 18:45:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Liamn
Some of the best fights in EVE have taken place in FW space; and that is what most pilots who remain hope for. Many of us PVP out of our own income – to support a war with PVE demands . . . that has resulted in FW becoming stale (even Sasawong will get burnt out some day). It would be nice to be rewarded for the PVP efforts. We would then be able to have more (fun) fights.
I have seen people come and go in FW. Most who have stayed do not want anything to do with null sec: politics, sovereignty, blobs, etc. So any ‘fixes’ that sponsor or encourages those things are a version of 0.0 lite, and will ultimately result in FW space becoming – well look at the rest of low sec today.

0.0 Lite versions – not good:
1. The whole consequence idea (who came up with this kind of crap anyway)
- Complete station lockout
- LP community pool
2. Make it more consistent with null sec territory

Stuff I don’t care about:
1. Replace occupancy with sovereignty
2. Complex Changes – I would just trash the whole thing

The Datacore thing:
1. Still wondering how did that make it into a FW forum
2. If anything, provide a new datacore (via FW LP) that has 100% of obtaining a t2 cruiser or battleship bpc. This would be great if the LP payout changes to a PVP reward system (as opposed to the existing complex-type system)
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2012-03-31 19:09:01 UTC
Liamn wrote:
Some of the best fights in EVE have taken place in FW space; and that is what most pilots who remain hope for. Many of us PVP out of our own income – to support a war with PVE demands . . . that has resulted in FW becoming stale (even Sasawong will get burnt out some day). It would be nice to be rewarded for the PVP efforts. We would then be able to have more (fun) fights.
I have seen people come and go in FW. Most who have stayed do not want anything to do with null sec: politics, sovereignty, blobs, etc. So any ‘fixes’ that sponsor or encourages those things are a version of 0.0 lite, and will ultimately result in FW space becoming – well look at the rest of low sec today.

0.0 Lite versions – not good:
1. The whole consequence idea (who came up with this kind of crap anyway)
- Complete station lockout
- LP community pool
2. Make it more consistent with null sec territory

Stuff I don’t care about:
1. Replace occupancy with sovereignty
2. Complex Changes – I would just trash the whole thing

The Datacore thing:
1. Still wondering how did that make it into a FW forum
2. If anything, provide a new datacore (via FW LP) that has 100% of obtaining a t2 cruiser or battleship bpc. This would be great if the LP payout changes to a PVP reward system (as opposed to the existing complex-type system)

Few things
1) The proposal is to get LP from PvP and plexing
2) The FW community asked for consequences so there was a point to us fighting
3) You talk about how FW is a drain on your income, yet complain about the datacore proposal which would give another FW LP item to be sold on the market for ISK and/or a way to reduce the cost of building T2ships for FW members...

Rimase
#243 - 2012-04-01 11:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
Control Bunker
Suggestive cosmetic and size change of this object sounds great. However, its purpose could be re-imagined with DUST 514.

  • Control Bunker would be a universal beacon indicating where the frontline of battle is. Upon sovereignty transition, Militia are alerted of this solarsystem's presumable intense activity and so Militia migrate to this solarsystem, fueling the war: intensifying the battle.
  • Control Bunker would be the solarsystem's sovereignty transition threshold, too. This means upon attacking it the system begins a count-down timer and triggers DUST 514 'Quick Game' selection. Space victories and planet victories decrease the countdown timer contributing to a faster result.
  • Control Bunker would create a Military-class Cynosural Field for Militia to Bridge-Jump (any distance) or Micro-Jump (short distance).
  • (Classes of Cynosural Fields: Public-class (invulnerable), Private-class (player's & Generator's), Covert-class (limitations, player's & sansha's), Military-class (guarded, auto-activated for Militia).
  • NPC Incursions can intrude making for an interesting additional threat. This would layer additional objectives in claiming a solarsystem via the Control Bunker and jam all Cynosural Fields.
  • (Objectives: remove Sansha's Nation & attack Control Bunker: transition timer begins)

    Summery:
    + Faction Warfare EVE-DUST Link suggested on Fanfest keynote is totally agreed upon by me. Big smile
    + Control Bunker is the indication of a persevering battle within that solarsystem. This tells Militia players to get in this system before failure. (Focusing populations!)
    + NPC Incursions would allow for easier solarsystem sovereignty capture but longer because of additional layer of Militia objectives against the Incursion faction, which is Sansha's Nation.


    Militia Services
    Quote:
    'Upon ship-loss as a Militant, your shipline is automatically replaced with an economized (Tech 1) Navy Issue version (Tech °) of Combat Shiplines or Attack Shiplines. Your reimbursed ship-class depends on your Militia Rank. This service also includes economized Navy Issue (Tech °) modules prompt with Fitting options for your role.
    The service cannot be abused nor accumulated. If you lose your ship again within time-frame, you will not be reimbursed. This is to maintain finances and resources so it's your own fault if you haven't learned after your failures!'

    Note: Faction Warfare Militia reimbursements cannot be resold on the Market nor should they be reprocessed.

    'If you have no use for this reimbursed ship you may trade it with your fellow Militia capsuleers.'
    Militia Services support your war efforts. It necessarily prolongs any solarsystem warfare activity, and planning ahead by relocating Medical Clone is dire for rapid response. A militia fleet can co-ordinate this, which could easily be your empire's winning ticket. Enemies would do the same in adjacent solarsystems locking Militia into battle. Corporate Militia may designate an area of their defence and faction's elected Commander distributes them all for them to abide.

    - Militant Manufacturers would craft to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and a Navy Issue BPC to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank.
    - Militant Traders would buy-sell to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and ISK to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank.
    - Militant Harvestors/miners would harvest to trade resources for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points. This makes 'Militia Agents' offer Manufacturers a craft order for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points. This also increases Rank.
    - (new) Militant Conveyors (Smuggler/Transporter) can accomplish 'Militia Agent' missions in importing or smuggling contemporary Solarsystem bonus for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and sub-sequential Standings reimbursement. Constricted by Concord and empire customs. This also increases Rank.

    ::'Their roles contribute to sustaining the local Constellation battle efforts of your Militia's combatants. Loyalty Points can be decidedly donated to upgrade solarsystems as the Fanfest keynote suggests.'

    Summery:
    + Clone respawn planning. (Captivating populations!)
    + Militia Rank-based ship reimbursement.
    (inc. pre-set Selection of modules for your role)
    + Focusing combat activity.
    + Giving Militia roles for non-combatant players.


    Faction Standing:
    Suggested by another post, I deny the idea of standing loss of players. Remember this is a sandbox game. Your decisions affect players, and you decided to offer your military support to your faction. However, there still can be a way!
    The principle of Black Ops comes to mind. By becoming a hidden identity no-one knows who you are, and so you would not lose Standings! (Check this thread about Clandestine Shiplines). However, since you're on no-one's side, you can be targetted by anyone including your friendlies!

    Summery: Black Ops can deny Standings loss but at an increased risk of friendly-fire death.

    Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

    Rimase
    #244 - 2012-04-01 11:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
    Cloning / Respawning: (DUST's respawning to EVE's Militia)
    With thought of making contraband a big deal, this big deal could also be applied on to sub-legal and illegal ships and even sub-legal clones. This idea is to support faction warfare more as e-sport within the sandbox. It can also make sense in this hyper-fiction distant alternate universe future.


    • I've already mentioned 'Clandestine Shiplines' (link explain) or 'Privatized Shiplines' if you like.
    • Additionally, with his new 'Immortal' implant-cloning of DUST soldiers could prove something of a sub-legal thing, too. It's a crazy super-power of war, I believe. This being understood, the Medical Clones we have now are all O.K. in the universe of EVE but what about 'Immortal Clones' for capsuleers?

    Quote:

    Information: Immortal-grade Clones
    'By becoming a Militant you are conditionally exempt to using Immortal-grade Clones the same as DUST players use, which are free! These implant-based medical clones immediately recover your skill-points upon death for you. However, this denies you the use of Attribute Enhancer augmentations though Skill Hardwirings are still useable but not reimbursed. This is a Militia Services condition for Immortal-grade clones that has to be met, and so using your Jump Clones with Skill Hardwirings will deny you usage of your Immortal-grade Clone. Instead, you'll activate a Mortal-grade Clone losing all your skill-points with the only option to recover is by Jumping into your Immortal-grade clone.

    Immortal-grade Clones can also be acquired by non-Militia players. This is illegal and isn't necessarily free likely to pay a lump one-off fee, and nor are they available for non-Militants in high security systems. Before acquiring one you will be prompt whether or not you want to join your Militia to confirm your actions.

    Non-Militant people using Immortal-grade Clones are disapproved of and will receive increased decrement of Standing losses by -205 percent.'
    1. (Legal) Mortal-grade Medical Clone: for any capsuleer.
    2. (Sub-Legal) Immortal-grade Augmented Clone: exempt for Militia.

    Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

    Aidan Patrick
    Aldebaran Foundation
    #245 - 2012-04-01 13:14:21 UTC
    The following is my personal feedback and is not intended to be the direction of the thread, however feel free to use the Like button or comment on my ideas freely.

    First and foremost, the changes are good over all, but in my opinion the balancing methods chosen are not ideal.

    LP Reward System:
    From my understanding the updated reward system provides both discounts and increases in LP gains solely through control of territory. Additionally, it is specifically mentioned that CCP wants to provide more benefit to the ranking system. In response, I offer the following changes in regards to the LP reward system:

    1) Provide Increased LP Gains based on militia rank
    • Reason: LP is essentially the primary method of pay for militia. In real life, military pay is based on rank. As you increase in rank, you gain bonuses to your LP gain.

    2) LP Cost Reduction Remains Tied to Territory Controlled
    • Reason: The more territory controlled by a faction, the more resources they will have. In turn this equates into more assets and being able to offer those assets to their militants at lower cost.

    To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.



    Participation Penalties (Standings Hits):
    As in stands now there is one sole reason that I will not participate in factional warfare because of. That is because when you participate in factional warfare and kill an enemy... You lose standings with their faction. Believe me, I agree this does make perfect sense. However as a game mechanic I think it should be removed. My reasons are as follows:

    • Factional Warfare is supposed to be an introduction to PVP. However new players are not educated about standings hits and in some cases do not understand the standings system at all. A new player could in turn find themselves in a position of being unable to succeed at the combat but still be penalized for participating thus creating a situation where new players can wind up in a perpetual torrent of fail that could eventually wind up in destruction of their assets even after leaving factional warfare. That's not a great way to bring new players in.

    • As an existing player, my standings are precious. I do not want to participate in a type of PVP that will adversely affect my ability to operate in any part of space once removing myself from that activity. This is why I do not participate in piracy and suicide ganks. It is also why I am deterred from factional warfare, despite a massive interest in it.

    • The only real way to recover standings lost through factional warfare penalties is to grind it off using the mission running system. This system is something players such as myself absolutely abhore. The fact that I would have to participate in mission running to clean up from a PVP activity in order to be mobile while not part of the faction is ridiculous, in my opinion

    In conclusion, I believe that standings penalties for engaging faction warfare players and NPC's should be removed. There should not be a hidden penalty for participating. Especially when the feature is supposed to be friendly to new players.

    It wont let me have an empty signature...

    Aidan Patrick
    Aldebaran Foundation
    #246 - 2012-04-01 13:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aidan Patrick
    Rimase wrote:
    Faction Standing:
    Suggested by another post, I deny the standing loss of players. Remember this is a sandbox game. Your decisions affect players, and you decided to offer your military support to your faction. However, there still can be a way!
    The principle of Black Ops comes to mind. By becoming a hidden identity no-one knows who you are, and so you would not lose Standings! (Check this thread about Clandestine Shiplines). However, since you're on no-one's side, you can be targetted by anyone including your friendlies!

    Summery: Black Ops can deny Standings loss but at an increased risk of friendly-fire death.


    Your use of the word deny is a little bizarre at points. I do however understand that you are saying you do not support my idea to remove standings penalties for killing Faction Warfare targets. I would like to offer a counter-point and see if it changes your mind.

    In the following examples, please note that I am going off of information provided by EVE University in a written medium and have not actually reproduced the effects myself. The following provided quotes were located on the EVE University website here.

    EVE University wrote:

    Killing/podding a player who is a member of a NPC FW corporation
    If you kill/pod a player in an NPC FW corporation, then you standing with that corporation will decrease. Your standing with that player's FW faction will remain unchanged.

    E.g. A member of Thukk U kills a member of the 24th Imperial Crusade (Amarr NPC corp). The Thukk U pilot will lose standing with the 24th Imperial Crusade, but not with the Amarr faction.


    EVE University wrote:

    Killing/podding a player who is a member of a player FW corporation
    If you kill/pod a player in an player FW corporation, then all standings will remain unchanged.




    The above two quotes outline how flawed the standings loss system in factional warfare already is. In my opinion, it should either be all or nothing and personally I think adding more standings loss to the system would be bad. The fact of the matter is standings loss is a penalty. Penalizing players for participating is a bad thing. Especially when the risk factor is that regardless of standing you can't enter the enemy space without retaliation by their navies because you are a registered soldier of the enemy.

    In addition to the above, being a member of factional warfare puts you at risk of combat every time you undock. These in my opinion fulfill the role of penalties well enough. I understand where you are coming from by saying that you make a choice to participate in factional warfare. I agree. However most participants do not become educated about the standings loss unless another participant happens to tell them in advance, or they notice it from actively participating. The fact that it is not clearly outlined that you will lose standings for participating in combat is reason enough to remove the penalty, or at least notify people of the risks and what the risk entails.

    IE, "You may lose standings for destroying enemy targets. This can cause you to be unable to enter their space without being attacked even after withdrawing from factional warfare.")

    Personally, I think a disclaimer like (which currently tells the truth) put onto a feature designed to bring new players into PVP would actually deter them from using the feature. Why? Because they don't know if they'll like PVP.

    I would like to mention that if anyone has suicide ganked someone in an NPC corp before, they may have noticed that killing a player in *ANY* npc corp gives you a standings penalty (ship and pod). This is the mechanic that is causing standings loss in factional warfare. I'm just asking they remove this mechanic for registered factional warfare participants.



    Now, in relation to your "Black Ops" role I understand where you are coming from. What you are essentially asking for is an uniformed soldier in EVE. Now in real life most countries that recognize the Geneva Convention consider an uniformed soldier to be a terrorist (or a soldier that has a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (Source: Part I, Article 4, 4.1.2).

    Now after my previous comment on the Geneva Convention the obvious response to me is "The UN doesn't exist in EVE!". I agree. However, CONCORD does exist. If you read up on CONCORD you will learn that they are a peace-keeping force formed by the four major empires jointly. A proverbial UN. Thus, from my opinion an un-registered 'Black Ops' soldier would be considered a war crime and punishable by CONCORD interference.

    On top of all of that, if a soldier chooses to operate free from the uniform, the enemy will no longer identify them as a soldier and as an individual. At this point it becomes acceptable for them to mark that individual as a criminal in their territory. Why? Because they are actively engaging in combat against them as an individual. Thus, standings loss as a mechanic actually makes sense when you do this.



    That's all I have. Thank you for reading.

    It wont let me have an empty signature...

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    Wild Geese.
    #247 - 2012-04-03 14:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
    Thanks for the feedback, pod people! Keep it coming, I haven't been posting much but I'm monitoring the thread and taking notes. Tomorrow is the day CSM7 officially takes office and can begin our work, and I'll finally receive internal forum access.

    First order of business will be some triage, assessing what is and isn't set in stone at this point, which features CCP has committed to, and what features they are still working out the balancing issues for. This will help me deliver much more focused feedback on the areas that are still up in the air. Efficiency is the key here, we have a limited amount of time to get ideas in to them.

    Please help me out by sending some mails to your corpmates, explain to them that RIGHT NOW is the time to be speaking up about FW changes, if you want to be heard by CCP. May is not far off at all, so take some time to write some *words* and tell me what you think about the package described at Fan Fest!

    Please do not hesitate to approach me in-game or send my an EVEmail if there's an issue you want to discuss in detail.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #248 - 2012-04-03 18:03:48 UTC
    Aidan Patrick wrote:


    To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.




    The main problem will not be people switching sides it will be new people joining the winning side and no new people joining the losing side. The losing side will also likely have more people leaving than the winning side.

    It happens already when there are no militia wide consequences. Adding the consequences will just make this happen faster.

    People should be given some sort of reward for doing plexes directly. But the members of the militia who do not do anything for the occupancy war should not get direct benefits. There should be some militia and neweden wide indirect effects but not substantial direct benefits to the whole militia.

    Right now offensive major plexes pay somewhat ok in tags. But the defensive plexes pay nothing and the minor offensive plexes do not pay enough to replace the ammo you use to kill the rat.

    Overall the plexing game needs to be made fun and challenging. Once the occupancy war is made fun and challenging then winning the war will be a worthy goal.

    You can always ask "why do you want to do that?" with any game. Null sec alliances try to win territory! Why do they want to do that? So they can make isk! Why do they want to do that? So they can fly bigger ships! Why do they want to do that? So they can win more territory!

    Once being a good occupancy plexxer is generally considered something to be proud of, then fw will be fixed. Until then it will remain broken.

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

    Sui'Djin
    Scandium Defense and Security Inc.
    Sleeper Protocol
    #249 - 2012-04-04 07:21:52 UTC
    Many people don't seem to understand that faction war is designed to be an everlasting war and therefore cannot be won. If CCP implements severe and long lasting consequences that have a big impact to the 'losing' faction, pilots of this faction unfortunately tend to just quit faction war. Which leaves the 'victor' without targets to shoot at. Those consequences should therefore not be morale breaking or spoiling the fun of defending / fighting back. Balancing this will be a delicate job.

    Nullsec is a completely different story. Sov wars in nullsec are meant to have severe consequences. Losing territory permanently and wiping out the enemy are meant to happen. Faction War was never meant to be this way, and therefore nullsec mechanics are not applicable to it.
    Rimase
    #250 - 2012-04-06 11:37:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rimase
    Let's destroy the Trade Capital!
    Militia being able to discourage trade at 'trade capitals'


    I suspect Militia may bring about plundering markets, changing economies where players have to relocate their goods for nominal value. Sounds oh-so cool making trade capitals fall and spreading players around the universe to different markets.
    Trade capitals are well-known, and so the human mind is to interact with others. Where there's more people there is more fun: Jita 4-4 has 1000+ occupants.


    How would war effect market?
    Solarsystem market taxes can immediately become so high to financially support local battles. This turns station's 'civilian market' into military support, supporting resupply of war's finances and services.

    Basically, when war is around the stations and planets within solarsystem become 'militarized'. an additional layer of tax is placed for each station's sovereign identity, and this credit is converted to Loyalty Points (FW) and Standings (Corp & Faction). The whole purpose to bring down 'trade capitals' and have players make either a profitable decision or a investment decision. The profitable decision is to go elsewhere. The investment decision is to support the station's faction to victory.

    This questions Faction warfare gameplay (new)
    For this to begin, the impending war must prompt all locals. This is done by Militia defiantly persevering a Constellation into 'peak activity', from which then a whole Constellation becomes a war siren. This tells Militia players where the battle is at to greater focus combat activity with auto-activated Military-class Cynosural Field Generators (NPC) and shake-up the local market.

    Those NPC Military-class Cynosural Field Generators are well-guarded opened by your sovereignty, are hacked by the enemy Militia to use and, most interestingly, hacked by Incursion invaders. Sansha's Nation could decidedly pour-blast through a disengaged Constellation alert in attempt to resolve and punish inactivity.

    How would this work, exactly? There may be a limit of active 'alerts' in Constellations like there are only a few Sansha's Nation Incursions. This denies covering the whole universe with Constellation alerts.
    This Constellation-wide alert gives stations if ever managed by one single capsuleer or corporation the option to have it support local warfare ('Militarized station' where Militia are resupplied and respawn freely). However, this makes that player a Militia target until the local Constellation becomes safe.
    How are Constellation war alerts triggered?? Most highest warfare activity within Constellation's solarsystems.

    Station conversions (two types):
    1. Civilized Station - normal; solarsystem(s) (small) or constellation (big) do not give Militia free services.
    2. Militarized Station - applied additional heavy taxing to fund free services for Militia in Constellation.


    What are the bonuses of 'militarized stations'?
    • Militia are supported with additional 'respawn locations' using Templar-grade Clones like those of DUST players & Fanfest trailer.
    • :: "Imagine the military application!"
      :: "The power they would have. They would be--" :: "Immortal."

    • Militia are supported of station's finances and services, bringing Militia-class (T1 Improved) ship-loss reimbursements and and free services, whilst funding and servicing local 'Garrison Outposts'. This keeps Militia capsuleers incentives in correspondent to the responsible risks they've chosen and accepted.

    • Any player using the station, paying the 'militia tax' will increase Standings (Corp & Faction) and Loyalty Points (FW) to them.

    • They deny enemy docking the station even sometime after local Constellation faction warfare has ended.

    What are the consequences of 'militarized stations'?
  • Impose an additional, unavoidable 'militia tax' on players sub-sequently placing market orders, selling, buying, using services. This does not exempt Militia corporations.
  • This is the instigation of this post: Militia can destroy player-selected 'trade capitals'! This disproves trade hubs and spreads players across the universe particularly away from Jita 4-4.
    -

    Looking to join Caldari Faction Warfare corporation!

    Uppsy Daisy
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #251 - 2012-04-06 15:53:17 UTC
    Cearain wrote:
    Aidan Patrick wrote:


    To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.




    The main problem will not be people switching sides it will be new people joining the winning side and no new people joining the losing side. The losing side will also likely have more people leaving than the winning side.

    It happens already when there are no militia wide consequences. Adding the consequences will just make this happen faster.

    People should be given some sort of reward for doing plexes directly. But the members of the militia who do not do anything for the occupancy war should not get direct benefits. There should be some militia and neweden wide indirect effects but not substantial direct benefits to the whole militia.

    Right now offensive major plexes pay somewhat ok in tags. But the defensive plexes pay nothing and the minor offensive plexes do not pay enough to replace the ammo you use to kill the rat.

    Overall the plexing game needs to be made fun and challenging. Once the occupancy war is made fun and challenging then winning the war will be a worthy goal.

    You can always ask "why do you want to do that?" with any game. Null sec alliances try to win territory! Why do they want to do that? So they can make isk! Why do they want to do that? So they can fly bigger ships! Why do they want to do that? So they can win more territory!

    Once being a good occupancy plexxer is generally considered something to be proud of, then fw will be fixed. Until then it will remain broken.


    People will join the losing side because the supply of that side's datacores will dry up, driving up prices of that whole races T2 economy.

    e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores.

    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #252 - 2012-04-06 16:20:51 UTC
    Uppsy Daisy wrote:
    People will join the losing side because the supply of that side's datacores will dry up, driving up prices of that whole races T2 economy.

    e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores.

    Guess your CCP main has been revealed Uppsy .. that was what Soundwave's masterplan is, almost verbatim Big smile

    Here is what is more likely to happen:
    - Since CCP has moved from FoTM to FoTY paradigm you'll essentially have several years in which a faction, whose ships are out of style, putter along with a skeleton crew. What few die-hards remain can make a healthy profit but then they/we are likely to stay in order to shoot others in the face so 'meh'.
    - T2 prices of that faction will probably spike, but then T3 are continually dropping and with POS/Industry changes likely to drop even further .. T3 > T2 .. betcha that will be the case even after CCP revises the T2/T3 relationship. Additionally, cores are primarily used for invention whereas BPO's handle most of the 'expensive' production (ie. ships = only cores with specific faction tags).
    - CCP new found love for new ships/modules will further erode the need for a given factions T2 ships.
    - Etc.

    In conclusion: The ONLY way that it will play out as envisioned by the resident in a Russian prison (yes, still waiting for the damn reparation blog, Soundwave!) is if datacores are divided among the various factions and their use is spread out to other areas (like T3, named mods, Pirate hulls etc.) so that no single faction can be left to rot as it were.

    Do you really think that CCP are willing to go that extra mile to make their supposed 'FW fix' work ... ?
    Personally doubt it, they'll probably just up the drop rates in exploration sites to pick up any slack when emo-ragers spam the forums about missing cores.

    Note: You may have guessed that my faith in CCP is .. hmmm, how to put it nicely ... limited Smile
    David Caldera
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #253 - 2012-04-07 11:41:06 UTC
    Uppsy Daisy wrote:
    e.g. Amarr are loosing, supply of amarr datacores dry up. Prices of all Amarr T2 items spike, people are therefore incentivised to join amarr to get at the valuable datacores.
    That may be true, but in order to draw in new players, you may need a more obvious incentive to get them to join the losing faction.

    I don't know, maybe you could get more LP from killing war targets or plexing if you are on the losing side?
    2D34DLY4U
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #254 - 2012-04-07 12:17:23 UTC
    How about a passive LP income for all pilots enrolled in FW?

    Soundwave's comment about partially moving the passive datacore farm to FW could then be implemented with less impact.

    It's a small thing but could bring more people in...Pirate
    Uppsy Daisy
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #255 - 2012-04-07 19:16:01 UTC
    Who is soundwave?
    David Caldera
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #256 - 2012-04-08 08:40:23 UTC
    Uppsy Daisy wrote:
    Who is soundwave?
    I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?
    Zoe Decay
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #257 - 2012-04-08 09:44:14 UTC
    Rukia Taika wrote:
    Muad 'dib wrote:
    Not docking in enemy system stations is a huge mistake. the rest looks pretty fun


    I like the idea of not being able to dock at an enemy station. after all you are at war with said faction. why would you allow someone like that to dock up all safe like. yes this will affect trade hub prices in the area but it comes down say your a United stares Marine and you are at war with Iran, why would Iran let you stay at their hotel when you do not control it?

    as an example i mean no offense


    If that's the case then you should be allowed in hi sec with negative security rating AS long as you stay in your space. Kind of how pirates really were. Actually a thought occurred to me. You could be commissioned to kill other players from any Npc corp of the enemy as well.
    Velicia Tuoro
    Light Speed Interactive
    #258 - 2012-04-09 14:59:41 UTC
    David Caldera wrote:
    Uppsy Daisy wrote:
    Who is soundwave?
    I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?


    He's lead game designer.

    http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=author&p=CCP%20Soundwave

    Senior Representative Light Speed Interactive http://www.lightspeedinteractive.net

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    Wild Geese.
    #259 - 2012-04-09 15:14:24 UTC
    David Caldera wrote:
    Uppsy Daisy wrote:
    Who is soundwave?
    I could be mistaken, but isn't he the developer that gave the FW presentation? Can anyone confirm this?


    No, the presenter who gave the FW presentation was CCP Ytterbium.

    CCP Soundwave is the lead game designer for EVE Online.

    I urge all FW enthusiasts to take 15 minutes and watch this interview:

    http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve-online/interviews/inferno-part-one

    Soundwave talks a great deal about Faction Warfare and his vision for it, and especially his willingness to "see it break". He appears to be just fine with the idea of meta-gaming in Faction Warfare, and price wars giving third parties reasons to enlist characters and manage the conflict.

    Should Faction Warfare be "breakable" ?? Should one side be able to overwhelm the other? Do you want market reasons for pilots to get involved with FW??

    Please listen the interview and share your feedback here in this thread, as this is how the Lead Designer sees the future of FW, for better or for worse....

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #260 - 2012-04-09 15:35:15 UTC
    Soundwave bashing. Best bashing.

    He is what happens when reality-show meets corporate reality, a person whose qualifications are being a known face and having been with CCP for a prolonged period of time. Perfect in a community manager position, but as lead designer?

    ISK is not a balancing factor, heard that before? It works for/in null with moons/space because the numbers are so insanely high, but how the hell can anyone think it will work with the peanuts and <200 actives that is FW.
    I have to say, I don't envy the hill you have climb Hans .. going to be an arduous task to get through that addled brain of his. If your position requires you to communicate directly with it, may I suggest you ask CCP for some sort of hazard pay to help cover the shrink bills that will surely follow.