These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

FW - Switching Warzone Control Scaling to a Different System
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#21 - 2012-07-25 17:05:00 UTC
I think this change is what FW needs, and I totally support the nerfing of people farming sister militia for LP. Also I think Tiers of warzone control are silly, if you can't get to the next tier with your current systems there is no reason to upgrade systems, it should be a continuous function between 0 and 100% with 0.25X at 0 all the way up to 4X at 100%.

Just looking at the Amarr-Mini warzone it would mean that minmatar offensive plexers would be earning more per plex but have only a few systems available to plex in, making it easy to find and kill them for amarr.

For the amarr the incentive to plex comes from raising the warzone control, however they don't need to feel like they can't earn any ISK because they have the same prices as minmatar. The reduced rewards are balanced by the greater availability of plexes.


It seems broken that I can farm up 1, 2 or even 3 million LP without caring about any warzone control or pvp then just waiting for one of the arranged dates to come around and cashing in. Similarly it seems broken that even if amarr wanted to cash LP they'd actually lose money to do so because of the awful Tier 1 store.

My personal suggestions for FW

1. Remove sister militia plex farming.
2. Remove LP for plexing in vulnerable systems.
3. Cap System vulnerability at 110%
4. Tier 3 LP store for all.
5. Varied LP rewards based on warzone control as a continuous function, not Tiers.
6. Systems decontest with time at a rate of 5-10% per day
7. Defensive plexing contributes LP to IHub
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-07-25 17:29:00 UTC
I read about four post before OP just keeps telling people "no you're wrong"

Let me explain why you sir are wrong:

1) The LP is fairly static that your earn, sure you get boost from different teirs but its not game breaking boost.

2) To hold a pema a T4 or even a T3 is near impossible when FW is working as intended. Let me explain why:

A) Right now the caldari have both minnie and gals plexing the life out of our systems, without us constantly dumping LP into hubs which are meaningless is unrealistic.

B)The amount of sheer LP to go from T1 to T4 is about 7m LP donated by pilots. Thats a lot of donations. The average pilot donates less then 100k LP. Thats 70 pilots dumping approx 4-500m of ISK.

C) I only need to cash out once a month or maybe 2x a month tops, why would I waste my LP keeping a hub up to a level where I dont need it. I dont run to the bank when I have $5 in my pocket, I make a deposit when I have $100. Same thing with LP

D) Coordination amongst your miltia will allow people to cash out. The complainers that "miss" it are just dumb or not paying attention. For example we know the Gals cash out once a month on a set date. If you miss it your r3tarded. You know its coming. If RL keeps you away cash out next month. Eve is NOT wow, it is persistent, people that dont log in for those important days are naturally going to miss out, whether its RL fault or not.

E) The only thing needs changing is the sister farming and afk farmers. Seriously I sat in Okagiken cloaked all day while I was at work and the same minnie plexer was there all day long. He then was there when I logged on at night. Its ridiculous.

Bottom line making LP worth a value at the tier you gained it is dumb. You are trying to force people to only plex at certain tiers, and in turn you would nerf the LP mechanics ....

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-07-25 17:29:48 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
Your militia can hold t4 and hits t5 regularly.
Seems a bit self serving to ask CCP to turn those 120min profit bursts into a full time profit stream.

Two, 120 minute bursts, twice in the last two weeks, amounts to a full-time profit stream?

Holding T5 is extremely difficult. Minmatar would earn at T3 the majority of the time.
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-07-25 17:33:09 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:



-You cannot get LP for plexing a vulnerable system (no more farming)
-You cannot plex a system past 100% contested. Once its vulnerable, a single plex won by the other side will make the system no longer vulnerable.
-Systems that have been conquered by the other side that originally belonged to your faction automatically contest 0.5% per hour. This rate should increase with the total number of overall systems held (ie if you hold more systems than the other side, your conquered systems will contest faster). This automatic contesting will not happen once the system is above 40% contested (see below).
-Defensive plexing a contested system puts LP back into the IHUB just like offensive plexing can steal LP from the IHUB. This would only apply if the militia was at Tier-1 or Tier-2.
-Defensive plexing highly contested systems give LP to the player just like offensive plexing. 80-100% contested give 100% LP, 60-80% give 50% LP, 40-60% gives 25%LP, 0-40% gives no LP.

The actual mechanics for the plex itself need to be tweaked as well, but there are other threads for that. I kind of like the NPC transport ship/boarding party hacking/attacking the ihub idea.



Love these ideas. You have my support

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-07-25 17:42:42 UTC
Quote:
If you're awarded 20000 LP for completing a medium plex at T3, then you'd be awarded 10000 LP at T2, and 5000 LP at T1. Conversely, 40000 LP at T4 and 80000 LP at T5.

The scaling can be changed so that the spread is not so severe.

As well, system upgrade costs can be tweaked. A tad cheaper at T1, more expensive at T4.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#26 - 2012-07-25 18:29:31 UTC
A lot of the arguments against this are only valid if nothing else is changed in FW, which I don't think is what we are suggesting, it would probably be easier to maintain a higher level of warzone control under the new system (although not without at least some effort)

Please read the argument for this at a basic level as:

"Rewards from FW should be decided at the time of the action, not at the next Warzone spike"

Simply a more organic system without so many forced spikes which to be honest do not seem in balance with the rest of the game. The exact implementation is widely open for debate but I have yet to see a solid argument against this first point.


Whatever the case the status quo isn't really sustainable. The ability to earn 5-700m / hr in a stealth bomber for the winners and absolutely nothing for the losers is probably not what was intended with this patch and probably needs addressing.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#27 - 2012-07-25 18:36:03 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Quote:
If you're awarded 20000 LP for completing a medium plex at T3, then you'd be awarded 10000 LP at T2, and 5000 LP at T1. Conversely, 40000 LP at T4 and 80000 LP at T5.

The scaling can be changed so that the spread is not so severe.

As well, system upgrade costs can be tweaked. A tad cheaper at T1, more expensive at T4.


I'd rather see some "Tiericide" in FW to be honest, when an empire controls less than 20% of the systems there is no reason for them to upgrade at all, even after these changes. I'd like to see it calculated at every % of Warzone control and displayed in the FW window.

E.g Your empire has 67% Warzone control you are earning LP at a rate of 1.7

Your empire has 28% Warzone conrol you are earning LP at a rate of 0.55

Or some more polished version of the above maybe make all LP payouts 4X greater than current and multipy by your % warzone control.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-07-25 18:52:59 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
"Rewards from FW should be decided at the time of the action, not at the next Warzone spike"

This is the TL;DR of the proposal.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#29 - 2012-07-25 18:55:43 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
A lot of the arguments against this are only valid if nothing else is changed in FW, which I don't think is what we are suggesting, it would probably be easier to maintain a higher level of warzone control under the new system (although not without at least some effort)

Please read the argument for this at a basic level as:

"Rewards from FW should be decided at the time of the action, not at the next Warzone spike".


I couldn't disagree more.

You want it so that when people join the winning side they get all these great benefits but the people who made that side winning get very little.

So lets say amarr turns the war around. Well everyone who actually fought for amarr when we were down would get very little lp for their efforts. But those carebears who join amarr after amarr are winning start getting 10xs as much lp! It's just a bad idea.

I really think ccp actually has a good system with these tiers. Players who don't really understand it keep recomending bad changes but I think the system will work it just needs time for players to actually develop and execute winning strategies.

IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:

...Whatever the case the status quo isn't really sustainable. The ability to earn 5-700m / hr in a stealth bomber for the winners and absolutely nothing for the losers is probably not what was intended with this patch and probably needs addressing.


Well I am not so sure amarr won't turn it around but the original proposal doesn't really address the problem you raise. I am storing amarr lp and plan on cashing it out at tier 5. If amarr continues on their current course of not flipping systems and just increasing the overall contested amount of minmatar space we will get there.

You all can run missions but that won't prevent amarr from getting to tier 5. Unless you can find more people to run defensive plexes for no lp than we can find offensive plexers we will be able to get to tier 5.

What would address the problem you raise is for ccp to do what they said they would do originally - make it so plexing pays better than missions. Right now missions pay more lp per hour than plexing. Reduce the lp payouts from missions by a third and this problem reduced. If it doesn't solve the problem then the mission payouts can be reduced further. Its a simple fix.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#30 - 2012-07-25 18:59:45 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
"Rewards from FW should be decided at the time of the action, not at the next Warzone spike"

This is the TL;DR of the proposal.



Right so everyone who fought for the side when it was losing get very little but those who just pile on the winning team after its winning get vastly more lp. Not a good idea.

Really ccp actually did a good job with the tier system.

The problems are 1) unbalanced rats, and 2) ability to ninja plex with alts. Fix those and the system will be great.

And probably reduce the lp from missions by about a third.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#31 - 2012-07-25 19:44:39 UTC
Cearain wrote:
And probably reduce the lp from missions by about a third.


Untill Amarr have access to agents right? Smile
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#32 - 2012-07-25 20:18:14 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
The ability to earn 5-700m / hr in a stealth bomber for the winners and absolutely nothing for the losers is probably not what was intended with this patch and probably needs addressing.

The question is whether or not the proposal will change anything.

Tier 5: Massive LP rewards ---> massive LP dump into upgrade systems ---> Stay at Tier 5.
Tier 1: Miniscule LP rewards ---> Not enough LP to dump into upgrades ----> Stay at Tier 1.

Same as now. Bottom Line: 1/4x to 4x is huge and will distort rewards no matter what system is used.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-07-25 20:24:53 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Tier 5: Massive LP rewards ---> massive LP dump into upgrade systems ---> Stay at Tier 5.
Tier 1: Miniscule LP rewards ---> Not enough LP to dump into upgrades ----> Stay at Tier 1.

What you're complaining about is the cost of upgrading a system from L4 to L5, which is out of reach at T1 rewards.

The cost of upgrading a system from L1 to L2 control is very small, and well within reach of anyone getting T1 rewards. The climb to T5 control is not supposed to be immediate, but gradual.


(That said, I don't even like the idea of spending LP to upgrade systems. It's a mechanic that doesn't even make any sense to me. I'd rather all system upgrades be a function of actual effort.)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#34 - 2012-07-26 15:52:50 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Tier 5: Massive LP rewards ---> massive LP dump into upgrade systems ---> Stay at Tier 5.
Tier 1: Miniscule LP rewards ---> Not enough LP to dump into upgrades ----> Stay at Tier 1.

What you're complaining about is the cost of upgrading a system from L4 to L5, which is out of reach at T1 rewards.

The cost of upgrading a system from L1 to L2 control is very small, and well within reach of anyone getting T1 rewards. The climb to T5 control is not supposed to be immediate, but gradual.


(That said, I don't even like the idea of spending LP to upgrade systems. It's a mechanic that doesn't even make any sense to me. I'd rather all system upgrades be a function of actual effort.)



Amarr could not get to tier 2 now even if we invested the lp. And we would need to upgrade systems to level 5 not to level 2. That lp would be stripped so fast from gunnless rifters it would quickly be seen as a waste of lp. So we would get a fraction of the lp minmatar get for doing the same activities.

If you just want to reduce the significance of winning the war that is one thing. But I think lots of people asked ccp to bring about consequences. Now we have them. They did it in a fairly clever way. Yes it may need tweaking but they actually did a good job with the tier system imo.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#35 - 2012-07-26 16:10:29 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:

What you're complaining about is the cost of upgrading a system from L4 to L5, which is out of reach at T1 rewards.
Actually I was complaining about the 1/4x to 4x ratio for "losing" versus "winning".
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#36 - 2012-07-26 16:25:45 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Cearain wrote:
And probably reduce the lp from missions by about a third.


Untill Amarr have access to agents right? Smile



Is your anus ready? Shocked Nulli is coming. Smile

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#37 - 2012-07-26 16:27:58 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Is your anus ready? Shocked Nulli is coming. Smile
I heard they tank each minor plex with four Vindicators.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#38 - 2012-07-26 16:39:46 UTC
Not quite in subject but:

Changed Contested System

It doesn't quite work unless missions lose their LP payouts. On subject - the swing on payouts is too great for either system to effectively work.
Previous page12