Assembly Hall

Originally, I was going to throw this idea out. However, the more I thought about it and 'tweaked' it the more I liked it. Then, I shared it with some militia friends, and they seemed to like it to--actually quite a bit (what parts I shared)--so I revisited portions of it, and fleshed out some of the details I was lacking.

A lot of my ideas includes changes that are interconnected, so in the beginning I'm going to give a high-level overview of it. I will probably be posting several follow up posts, fleshing out some of the details on my blog.



The Big Picture

Instead of removing occupancy, I suggest we change it -- introducing tiered sovereignty mechanics that are unique to faction war. Each system would have 5 'lvls' of occupancy shared between the warring factions. When one faction has lvl 2, the other will have lvl 3, etc., so that the total occupancy equals 5. This also means that when you gain an occupancy lvl, the opposing faction loses one.

Instead of occupancy only being tied to plexing, I propose we make it tied to all activity done within that system, giving players many options for defending and/or taking occupancy in systems. Missions done by agents in that system, pvp, and plexing would all give Victory Point payouts that would affect occupancy.

Your occupancy lvl would directly affect your LP payouts, with missions, plexes, and pvp giving lp payouts. It would be beneficial to take occupancy lvls to increase your income. Also, it would be beneficial to defend, as losing occupancy will make your income in that system decrease.

Once a faction gains an Occupancy lvl 4 (which will be relatively difficult to do) the system goes 'vulnerable' and they can make a final push to take Sovereignty of that system. This would include a structure/timer/etc similar to current null-sec mechanics.

Only FW pilots of the sovereign faction, and the 'sister' facation will have access to the stations in each system. (No neutrals)

In addition to these individual system mechanics, there would also be further overarching mechanics regarding 'the war' as a whole. The more occupancy and sovereignty you take in low-sec will directly affect your 'defenses' in highsec. There is the understanding that as you 'lose' occupancy lvls and sov in general in the low-sec systems, the 'faction police' will be sent to 'the front' to help defend. Therefore, the defenses in highsec will descrease, and in some cases, pvp will 'bleed' over into high-sec.



In addition to these general changes, I would


Make it so that only lvl 1-3 agents are in stations. LVL 4 agents would be moved into locations in space, similar to CONCORD agents in null-sec, and would be difficult to complete without a small gang.

Fix the unbalance in ewar and etc. in plexes, making plexes balanced across all races.

Repping someone from your faction will never give you a standings decrease, even if the person is a pirate. Neutrals repping FW pilots would get a standings hit from the opposing faction.


After the 'fixing' and 'reblancing' I would include the following New Content features:


LVL 5 Faction War missions that require largish fleets to get through.


Randomly occurring FW 'encounters' where NPC battles show up on gates and stations, and FW pilots could defend friendly NPCs, and kill enemy NPCs. The staged 'battle' would complete when all NPCs of one side were defeated. These encounters would range in size and scope, from small 'frigate' encounters to larger BS encounters..and could possibly include a good 'drop' of some kind, if a faction 'officer' happened to show up at the end. They would also be extremely dangerous to non FW 'neutrals' who would get shot by both parties.

'Invulnerable' systems would be more prone to these 'encounters.'


Random, wild cool stuff that mostly just relates to FW. (In the same way that dictors, bubbles, cyno jammers, and etc, are only really useful in nullsec)

I could get pretty imaginative here, but it's just a rough idea. An example would be a pos module that an 'offensive' party (ie: the non sov holding party) could put up that 'disrupts' communications in system, making it harder for the defending party to access their lvl 4 agents in space.

Or, perhaps a faction ship/item that gives you bonuses based on your faction standing.

Or perhaps a different kind of jump bridge that can connect highsec Faction 'bases' to low-sec 'bases' where both sovereignty and a high occupancy lvl is held.




Anyway, just an idea. I think FW needs more choices.

I would really like to see random NPC battles between the factions at war. To me, little things like that make FW just that much more interesting and fun to be in. CCP take notice of this!

+1 Susan

The parts about occupancy level directly affecting income and pvp 'bleeding' into highsec sound good. So does the fixes and rebalances part.



Now, while I see the reason for this (alts) I'm worried this will turn lowsec too much into an FW-only zone. People will be forced to either leave that part of lowsec or join factional warfare against their will because that's the only way they can get access to stations.
I think a good middle ground would be to either allow neutrals to dock OR only restrict docking in faction-specific stations such as 24th imperial crusade or tribal liberation force.

Also to fulfill my role as the eternal dissident... I don't know if more pve and missions is the way to go. Level 5 missions will attract more mission runners who don't contribute at all to the pvp side of FW. We already have enough of those. The random encounters may also do the same.
I'd tie FW missions to pvp in some way. Maybe allow one mission per kill or something similar to avoid too much mission running by people who don't actually take part in FW.

Just my thoughts, please don't hate me.

+1

I really like the idea of agents in space and random NPC battles. This has always been something I thought was missing. Some sort of alert for militia pilots in adjacent systems would be pretty cool as well so you could mobilize and have a focus for engagements with hostile pilots.

Say you like to camp a certain gate, the NPC's will drop on you, and send out a call for capsuleer backup.

Being able to scan out and disrupt/attack the agents would also be a plus.

Linking the mechanic of sov in low sec to NPC Navy presence in high sec is also a great idea.

+1

Perhaps if a faction can achieve the very difficult task of level 5 occupancy/sov, they are able to install gate and station guns that shoot at the opposing factions ... or something like that. At least something to make it more difficult to take it back and drawn out instead of the the standard TZ flips that it is now.

Suli

I like a lot of what you put out.

Im against any denial of docking in any way shape or form.


Fluff is not rules and usually leads to bad mechanics long run when you try to apply game play elements from the fluff standpoint. There are better negative things that can be done like shutting of station services rather then out right keeping you from docking that could be done.

I dont like the push to make Low Sec FW into null light that CCP is trying to go with.

Heck soundwaves interview was scary as it came off as if he has no connection to the FW community and what they want.

I have to agree with him.

Currrently the plexxing mechanics can bring about good quality pvp. Steps can be taken to increase the pvp for occupancy, but your proposal seems to increase the importance of pve instead of pvp.

For example you just say missioning should lead to change of occupancy but don't explain why. Also, as far as adding random npc battles I have to say I hope shooting these red crosses wouldn't effect occupancy. But by and large I just see that sort of like when incursions go to low sec systems. What happens? Those systems are avoided. It always sounds good to talk about new ais and new npcs in what if terms. However, when they are actually added to the game people soon realize that playing against a computer ai is never nearly as fun as playing against other players.

What are your thoughts on that?

Other than that I think a graduated system is ok. I do think one side will gain momentum and steamroll the other side if the benefits of joining the winning side are as good as the op seems to suggest. What will happen then? Do you think some sort of balancing mechanism should be used?

As far requireing faction war players to form groups in order to make isk I am against it. (being limitted to level 3 missions when there are others doing level 5s would suck) I have very few nights where I can fully dedicate 2 straight hours to eve with headset and mic. When I do have those times I would like to do pvp not mission.

I would prefer to do missions on the times where I may only have a bit of time here and there to play eve - and that means solo. I realize I may be more casual than even most fw players but I hope the drive to make fw like null sec doesn't leave me out.

I think it's a good idea. I've never done faction warfare myself and I've been quite interested in it, just one of the many aspects of the game I've yet to divulge into yet. Although to think of it, it would make things brutally challenging and both sides would have to push harder, which is nice. :]

Glad to see you're still flyin' and kickin' Susan, NI4NI says Hi.

The only good idea contained in this thread is having FW agents in space, and only because it would make getting missions easier without the need to dock.

I'm not sure but it seems you're implying all stations in any particular FW system will be locked off to anyone but the owning militia. This is ******** x1000. It would instantly send thousands of players into homelessness, severely **** up pretty much every aspect of the game outside Empire and doesn't make any logical sense.

A far more sensible idea would be to replace the current Bunker with a special FW-oriented "Garrison Outpost" that only the owning militia can dock in. This replaces a stupid worthless piece of **** structure with something with viable benefits without causing an uproarous calamity to the thousands of non-FW players who live in lowsec.