These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

FW could do with a mechanic to bust friendly bunkers

Author
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#1 - 2012-07-18 15:29:04 UTC
Currently drones assisting a WT alt will not engage a friendly bunker, suggest either this is fixed or a similar change is made so that you can shoot your own bunkers in FW, currently this is a bigger issue on the cal/gal front than mini/amarr but it is also becoming a prevalent tactic to get systems vulnerable without flipping them.

Possible solutions:

Systems decontest naturally with time either as a flat rate (say 10%) or as a function of how contested they are e.g. Drain% = Contest% / 10 (to prevent the excessively contested systems (200+%) becoming fortresses) or as a function of upgrade level e.g 3% * (upgrade level + 1)

Allow friendlies and/or their drones some way of engaging bunkers.

A timer on vulnerability after which the system returns stable (seems a bit of a clunky mechanic but could work)

or [Your solution here]

Trolling welcome.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#2 - 2012-07-18 16:19:48 UTC
I've suggested a decay rate to contested % based on the upgrade level of a system. It would have to be reasonable and balanced. i.e.-

1% every two hours at level 5.
1% every three hours at level 4.
1% every four hours at level 3.

And then five hours and six hours. You get the idea. It would serve to get rid of the annoying 3-4% here and there. After beating back a push and deplexing a system down a bit you could use upgrades to simplify grunt work. What it would not and can not do is blunt a major offensive. People should have to get their asses out on the line for that.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#3 - 2012-07-18 16:52:17 UTC
The decay rate you propose may be too fast. But, providing a decay rate as a system upgrade would likely make upgrading a system worth it.
Lithalnas
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#4 - 2012-07-18 17:19:53 UTC
at risk of trolling here, is minmatar worried about those 4 vulnerable systems they cant do much about. Granted you are T4 - T5 but still

https://www.facebook.com/RipSeanVileRatSmith shoot at blue for Vile Rat http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73406

Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2012-07-18 17:34:50 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Currently drones assisting a WT alt will not engage a friendly bunker, suggest either this is fixed or a similar change is made so that you can shoot your own bunkers in FW, currently this is a bigger issue on the cal/gal front than mini/amarr but it is also becoming a prevalent tactic to get systems vulnerable without flipping them.

Possible solutions:

Systems decontest naturally with time either as a flat rate (say 10%) or as a function of how contested they are e.g. Drain% = Contest% / 10 (to prevent the excessively contested systems (200+%) becoming fortresses) or as a function of upgrade level e.g 3% * (upgrade level + 1)

Allow friendlies and/or their drones some way of engaging bunkers.

A timer on vulnerability after which the system returns stable (seems a bit of a clunky mechanic but could work)

or [Your solution here]

Trolling welcome.


I'm not sure what the problem is here? The systems vuln sure but you still own it so what's the issue??

Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#6 - 2012-07-18 17:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuehnelt
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Trolling welcome.


Why, thank you.

Please CCP, buff Minmatar! Minmatar FW needs a buff badly. Amarr's abusive not-flipping-systems exploitation of FW mechanics has gotten them up to... four systems! This is outrageous! And Amarr are stubbornly refusing to flip three vulnerable systems! If they flipped those systems, they'd still be in Tier 1 and they would have accomplished absolutely nothing for themselves beyond 1) giving Minmatar lots of easy farm, and 2) making it that much harder to flip the requisite number of systems to get a Tier 2 reprieve, but don't fix any of that, OP thinks all of that's just fine, let's just buff Minmatar farm before this becomes a real problem.

Possible solutions:

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Systems decontest naturally with time either as a flat rate (say 10%) or as a function of how contested they are e.g. Drain% = Contest% / 10 (to prevent the excessively contested systems (200+%) becoming fortresses) or as a function of upgrade level e.g 3% * (upgrade level + 1)


1. Endless farm: once Minmatar reach a comfortable tier of warzone control, they should be able to stop flipping systems and then having to rely on demonstrably uncooperative Amarr to flip them right back. Instead of running out of farm, by having a system go vulnerable and stay that way until it's decontested or flipped, it should naturally regenerate Minmatar farm over time. In this way, it could be arranged that Amarr have a much larger number of systems (even noncontiguous systems, in places like Hofjalgund, Auner, Arnher, prepared for the Minmatar by alts), but still not Tier 2 numbers of systems, which the Minmatar need only somewhat restrain themselves for endless farm. Amarr won't be needed at all, except as alts to fight excess farmers! :-) There should be some balancing done here so that Minmatar can maximize their farm without accidentally encouraging an Amarr resurgence.

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Allow friendlies and/or their drones some way of engaging bunkers.


2. Reduce the need for Amarr alts: right now, enemy alts are needed to 'pop the bubble' of enemy offensive plexing, so to speak, foiling their efforts and creating farm for yourself. But this need is inherently balanced in favor of the weaker faction, as only that faction has a general incentive to develop enemy bomber alts. In other words, CCP has created a situation in which incentives slightly favor the Amarr - a nightmarish outcome! And surely unintended! So this situation should simply be eliminated by allowing militia to freely flip their own vulnerable systems. Bonus: no genuine Amarr need exist in the warzone anymore, at all! Minmatar can multibox skilless alts to contest systems, then flip them themselves, and then have other multiboxed skilless alts contest it right back. Apart from undocking to join bunker-busting fleets, Minmatar can spend all day playing League of Legends and watching their wallets blink. There should be some balancing done here so that Minmatar can maximize their income from their skillless Amarr plexing alts without accidentally encouraging an Amarr resurgence.

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
A timer on vulnerability after which the system returns stable (seems a bit of a clunky mechanic but could work)


3. Buff the power of Amarr alts! Right now, if the Amarr get a system vulnerable, Minmatar need alts capable of busting a bunker to flip it so that they can farm it anew. If it were the case that 'vulnerable' systems reset to stable after a period of time, this would force Amarr to flip it if they're to continue their campaign. You're already thinking: if this were the case, Amarr would obviously adapt and contest systems very highly rather than make them vulnerable. But actually, this still helps the Minmatar: rather than needing bunker-busting alts for vulnerable systems, they only need to have skilless plexing alts that can push these very highly contested systems into a vulnerable state.
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#7 - 2012-07-18 17:39:21 UTC
Thomas Kreshant wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Currently drones assisting a WT alt will not engage a friendly bunker, suggest either this is fixed or a similar change is made so that you can shoot your own bunkers in FW, currently this is a bigger issue on the cal/gal front than mini/amarr but it is also becoming a prevalent tactic to get systems vulnerable without flipping them.

Possible solutions:

Systems decontest naturally with time either as a flat rate (say 10%) or as a function of how contested they are e.g. Drain% = Contest% / 10 (to prevent the excessively contested systems (200+%) becoming fortresses) or as a function of upgrade level e.g 3% * (upgrade level + 1)

Allow friendlies and/or their drones some way of engaging bunkers.

A timer on vulnerability after which the system returns stable (seems a bit of a clunky mechanic but could work)

or [Your solution here]

Trolling welcome.


I'm not sure what the problem is here? The systems vuln sure but you still own it so what's the issue??



A vulnerable system is more valuable flipped so that you get LP for plexing it. Basically, the minmatar want to shoot their own bunkers instead of defensive plex.

The next step in FW is to create an army of alts in the opposing militia so you can bust your own bunkers.
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#8 - 2012-07-18 20:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuri Intaki
chatgris wrote:
The next step in FW is to create an army of alts in the opposing militia so you can bust your own bunkers.


That's what Bad Messenger prodicted long ago as well. And like everything else so far, he probably got that one right too.

And people still seriously wonder where are the people with actual knowledge of FW Big smile

And yeah, why would any gallente bust system like Alamel that nobody gives flying crap when it could be farmed for all eternity. Hell, only reason we busted couple of backwater system ihubs in Black Rise recently was because it sent our farmer alts to actually hit systems which might matter to us sometime in the future.
Dan Carter Murray
#9 - 2012-07-18 20:28:15 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:

or [Your solution here]
Trolling welcome.


Defensive plex.

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#10 - 2012-07-18 20:33:16 UTC
Yuri Intaki wrote:
And yeah, why would any gallente bust system like Alamel that nobody gives flying crap when it could be farmed for all eternity. Hell, only reason we busted couple of backwater system ihubs in Black Rise recently was because it sent our farmer alts to actually hit systems which might matter to us sometime in the future.


Vulnerable systems should really stop giving LP rewards. Agree/Disagree?
Dan Carter Murray
#11 - 2012-07-18 20:43:13 UTC
chatgris wrote:
Yuri Intaki wrote:
And yeah, why would any gallente bust system like Alamel that nobody gives flying crap when it could be farmed for all eternity. Hell, only reason we busted couple of backwater system ihubs in Black Rise recently was because it sent our farmer alts to actually hit systems which might matter to us sometime in the future.


Vulnerable systems should really stop giving LP rewards. Agree/Disagree?


agree, but to remove vulnerability defensive plex.

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com

Salicaz
Verrimus Caelum
#12 - 2012-07-18 21:09:32 UTC
Lol.

Aldrith Shutaq
Atash e Sarum Vanguard
#13 - 2012-07-18 21:14:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Aldrith Shutaq
How about screw that and you suck it up? If you don't want them vulnerable defensive plex and if you want them to flip wait until the Amarr militia has a reason to flip them.

Aldrith Ter'neth Shutaq Newelle

Fleet Captain of the Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris

Divine Commodore of the 24th Imperial Crusade

Lord Consort of Lady Mitara Newelle, Champion of House Sarum and Holder of Damnidios Para'nashu

Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-07-19 02:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Har Harrison
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:

or [Your solution here]
Trolling welcome.


Defensive plex.


So is this "[Your solution here]" or Trolling??? Cool

Considering it was D.C.M. who said it, it MUST be a troll... Lol

In other news - here's a shout out to my great corp mate - Dan Carter MurrayBig smile

Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-07-19 04:03:48 UTC
Sigh ... "Why wont amarr flip more systems for minnie militia to farm ???? CCP FIIIIX THIS !!!!"


Why would they feed you on purpose ?
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-07-19 12:23:15 UTC
Should there be a more interesting and rewarding way to bring a system down from a contested, vulnerable state then yes.

People have suggested many things.

Reward change defensive plexing, refill system control with LP form defensive plexing and many othersof which could work as fairly
rewarding mechanics.

To me it seems that the act of bringing a system to a vulnerable state should be brought to some form of conclusion.

A battle or objective to be completed should be encouraged; I have seen previous ideas regarding reinforcement timers that may work.

Rewards should be good for both sides, double LP for destroying ships near the ihub and big rewards for successfully defending or taking the system.

It should be more rewarding to take a system than leave it. Plexes can still spawn but no LP be rewards for offensive plexing past 100%, LP reward could swap to defensive plexing past 100%.

No reason systems have to start at level zero, you might think faction navy influence would be high following a system takeover how about it starts at level three or even four.

If defenders successfully defend then you could knock 50% of the contested status.
eddie valvetino
Bi-Polar Bears
#17 - 2012-07-19 12:29:10 UTC
posting in thread i don't understand or care about
Liamn
Atrum Deus Vult
#18 - 2012-07-20 23:02:44 UTC
Whah, whah, whah. Amarr is not playing nice. CCP, make them reset their system . . .
Seriously? You are complaining because your LP farming got slightly reduced?

'Working as intended' would be my answer.
Dan Carter Murray
#19 - 2012-07-21 01:26:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dan Carter Murray
defensive plex to get your systems uncontested.

CCP: fix vulnerable systems to where you can't still get LP or further contest the system past 100% (i defensive plexed 3 plexes in a system that was vulnerable and vulnerability didn't drop)

On a side note. WHAT THE F*CK DID YOU DO WITH ACCELERATION GATES CCP? I HAVE TO BE AT LESS THAN 2,000 METERS TO ACTIVATE ACCELERATION GATE NOW? FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY...Y U MESS UP MAH PLEX FARM DETERRENCE...

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#20 - 2012-07-21 13:15:04 UTC
You were lazy and let the system get vulnerable, instead of fighting the amarr who came there and plexed.

I was plexing for about 1.5 hours in auga kourm and dal. No one came to chase me out. It seems minmatar only like to do sov warfare when local is clear of wartargets.

You guys should really start actually fighting in the plexes instead of just whining to ccp to change the rules after your systems become vulnerable.

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

123Next page