These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare Redesign Thread

First post
Author
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#81 - 2011-10-11 20:43:44 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
I agree that people who run missions in FW ought to also pvp, but FW missions are a PvE activity, just like any other type of missions, and there is no requirement anywhere in Eve that somebody who does PvE also needs to PvP.


If we both agree fw mission runners ought to also pvp then perhaps ccp should make a requirement. That was sort of the original point of my post.

X Gallentius wrote:

More importantly, you can never enforce a rule like that without somebody figuring out a way to exploit it with alts. So good luck trying.



I listed 2 suggestions above.

X Gallentius wrote:

If CCP thinks FW missions are too easy for alt mission runners to exploit, then they know what they can do to help me put an end to them. :)



What you propose is not aimed at alts at all. Its aimed at everyone who runs missions regardless of how much they also pvp. Your proposal will hurt pvp in fw by making it harder for people to get ships to pvp in.

The suggestions I posted make it harder only for those who never pvp in fw. Those who do pvp in fw will benefit because the lp won't be devalued by everyone who just runs the missions and never pvps.

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

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#82 - 2011-10-11 20:52:43 UTC
Damar Rocarion undocks Joanna Ramirez (who has joined QCATS and is now in Gallente FW) in Eha and then kills her with Yuri Intaki. Yuri then picks up a L4 mission in Eugales where she opens it and runs back to Eha and kills Joanna again while Damar finishes the mission.

This example is complete fiction and could never happen because 1) Damar doesn't run FW missions, and 2) he has likely recycled Joanna by now. Haven't seen her flying around in a while.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#83 - 2011-10-11 21:20:36 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Damar Rocarion undocks Joanna Ramirez (who has joined QCATS and is now in Gallente FW) in Eha and then kills her with Yuri Intaki. Yuri then picks up a L4 mission in Eugales where she opens it and runs back to Eha and kills Joanna again while Damar finishes the mission.

This example is complete fiction and could never happen because 1) Damar doesn't run FW missions, and 2) he has likely recycled Joanna by now. Haven't seen her flying around in a while.




If the alt did not have a very high rank in Gallente and was not in larger ships then it wouldn't necessarrilly work - depending on how ccp did it.

Now if you say "well he will get an alt and grind up a high rank in the Gallente militia so that he can shoot that alt every few months and therefore exploit the system." Ok then you would be addressing the proposal.

But notice already we are making it *harder* for people who join fw soley to farm the missions. Currently they just push a button to join the militia and start farming. With this proposals they will not only need to do the missions but they will need to create an alt in the enemy militia that they then grind up in rank and then keep handy so they can shoot every now and then.

But even then CCP could work around that. 1) They could and probably should change how you gain rank in the militia. 2) Make it so you have to shoot 5 *different* enemies for every 30 missions that you run. Yes some people will develop multiple alts for that or perhaps share alts. So no its not impossible to get around it. But again its become harder to do.

But for every one mission runner that tries to create multiple alts to get around this restriction there are probably 2 who will say its not worth it (and thereby make the missions more lucrative for people who actually pvp in fw and therefore need the isk for new ships) and another 5 who will say fine I will try some pvp in FW.

There is no real draw back to this sort of proposal. Unless you have accounts that you do nothing but run fw missions on.

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

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#84 - 2011-10-11 21:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
So what you're saying is that I'm right and that you can't create a set of rules that can't be "manipulated". Agreed.

You're also saying it's ok to for some players to manipulate these rules as long as... what? Your personal isk/hour isn't affected too much by their alts running FW missions?


Quote:
There is no real draw back to this sort of proposal. Unless you have accounts that you do nothing but run fw missions on.
The drawback is that it can't be enforced. Farming alts are going to farm. That's what they do.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#85 - 2011-10-12 01:57:11 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
So what you're saying is that I'm right and that you can't create a set of rules that can't be "manipulated". Agreed. .


No thats not what I said.

X Gallentius wrote:

You're also saying it's ok to for some players to manipulate these rules as long as... what? Your personal isk/hour isn't affected too much by their alts running FW missions? .


Nope wrong again.

X Gallentius wrote:

Quote:
There is no real draw back to this sort of proposal. Unless you have accounts that you do nothing but run fw missions on.
The drawback is that it can't be enforced. Farming alts are going to farm. That's what they do.


The rules would be enforced by the server.

If you think changing the game mechanics will have no effect on what players do then why even post in these threads?

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

Damassys Kadesh
Royal Khanid Hunting Society
#86 - 2011-10-12 02:03:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Damassys Kadesh
X Gallentius wrote:
So what you're saying is that I'm right and that you can't create a set of rules that can't be "manipulated". Agreed.

You're also saying it's ok to for some players to manipulate these rules as long as... what? Your personal isk/hour isn't affected too much by their alts running FW missions?


Quote:
There is no real draw back to this sort of proposal. Unless you have accounts that you do nothing but run fw missions on.
The drawback is that it can't be enforced. Farming alts are going to farm. That's what they do.


I'll chime in here with my 3rd-party opinion. Gallentius is right in that you'd have a hell of a time thinking up a system that is infallible, but Cearain is making valid points towards making it tougher for the carebears that FW PvP'ers look down on. When it's said that there is"no requirement anywhere in Eve that somebody who does PvE also needs to PvP", I think we're talking about making FW a special case. The attitude seems to be that if you want to solely do PvE, there is plenty of content for you doing regular missions, and that if you want to do FW missions, it should go hand-in-hand with the PvP that FW is based on. And I'm sure some changes could be made that will push things in the right direction.

I'm also sure that if FW manages to pick up in general activity, people won't notice any remaining carebears as much. It's just that right now, if you roam around at an off-time in a small group, a large percentage of the targets that you come across are in cloakies and inties, and it's super annoying when you're looking for a fight.

A couple other things I wanted to mention:

-I agree that allied militia's should show in local/overview

-It was pointed out that limiting the area(s) of conflict would allow the larger force to concentrate their efforts and prove overwhelming. This is a valid point, but I don't think it could be effectively executed if the mechanics are right. Several constellations could be contested simultaneously, which means many systems are active at once, and in different clusters, plus, plexes maintain ship restrictions. Underpowered forces can dodge the larger ones and should still be able to be effective in other areas, or in certain plexes. I think there would be enough space to cover to make it impossible to steamroll, but still be focused enough that people know where to go to find action. Having the entire battleground fair-game at all times spreads the fight for occupancy far too thin imo.

-I reject the blunt statement that "FW is dead". I agree that the primary mechanic of occupancy is mostly dead (although there are groups that still engage actively in it), but as current member, I can say that there are plenty of enthusiastic PvP pilots that have a good time even with the terribly neglected mechanics. I know many active members will agree. It hasn't died, activity has declined significantly and the focus for the remaining players has changed.

Sourem Itharen > Congratulations Lady Kadesh, you have been selected by trial of fire and blood, under the watchful eyes of God, to represent Lord Khanid as his champion in the Imperial Succession trials -YC117

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#87 - 2011-10-12 03:42:15 UTC
Damassys Kadesh wrote:


-I reject the blunt statement that "FW is dead". I agree that the primary mechanic of occupancy is mostly dead (although there are groups that still engage actively in it), but as current member, I can say that there are plenty of enthusiastic PvP pilots that have a good time even with the terribly neglected mechanics. I know many active members will agree. It hasn't died, activity has declined significantly and the focus for the remaining players has changed.



Thanks for the insight.


If we renamed "Faction Warfare" to anything else, it wouldn't really matter. So, the concept is pretty much a dead goose.


If we renamed it "Fluffies Versus Squigglies" - you couldn't tell that apart from Faction Warfare in its current. Hence my statement, on principle, still stands. If the principles and the purpose are not in existence, then it quintessentially does not exist, regardless of what you want to call it.


Fluffies VS Squigglies needs serious CHANGES to become Faction Warfare again.

Where I am.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#88 - 2011-10-12 12:41:23 UTC
I did some checking on what CCP wanted when FW was created. System occupancy is one of many features - not THE feature of FW.

http://www.eveonline.com/empyreanage/features.html


Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#89 - 2011-10-12 14:40:15 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
I did some checking on what CCP wanted when FW was created. System occupancy is one of many features - not THE feature of FW.

http://www.eveonline.com/empyreanage/features.html





Well the first point just introduces that there will be militias. But of the other 7 only "Agents" and the introduction of black rise does not largely deal with the occupancy war. "Statistics" basically brought us maps to see what systems are contested and who was claiming the most space for the militias. "Ranks" are gained by running plexes etc.

So it seems to me this piece and other statements by ccp devs, make it pretty clear fighting for occupancy was indeed supposed to be the backbone of the war.

But regardless of what the *intent* of various devs was (and there is no reason to think they all thought the same) the question is *should* there be an overarching point to the fighting? Is faction war best if it is nothing more than rvb?

Even if what we are fighting for is somewhat rp only - fighting to gain occupancy for our faction - that beats "well we just joined a spaceship demolition derby that really has no overarching goals or point."

The problem with the curent system (and why many people refer to fw as broken), achieving the overarching goal was based on pve skill not pvp skill so no one really cared about it. It wasn't an accomplishment people valued.

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

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#90 - 2011-10-12 16:05:24 UTC
Cearain wrote:


The problem with the curent system (and why many people refer to fw as broken), achieving the overarching goal was based on pve skill not pvp skill so no one really cared about it. It wasn't an accomplishment people valued.




Agreed.

Not on a social EVE level or any other level.


Fluffies VS Squigglies is something that the average EVE denizen cares not for, not ever thinks about - to the new player it seems like an exciting thing with large forces at work and the ability to make a difference and say "I WAS THERE!"

But no - you're not fighting or defending anything, so it's just Fluff.



Where I am.

Dagren Darius
Ice Fire Warriors
#91 - 2011-10-12 16:37:38 UTC
To go along with the station discussion. Why not just have a station in FW systems instead of a bunker that is flipable. 1 station in the middle of the system that is controlled by the faction that holds the system. That station is then only usable by that faction, guns shoot the opposing faction, it can have lp store for that faction as well. Then no neutral RR undocking from it from either side, guns make it harder to camp, and if you use the station alot you won't want to loose that system. Just an idea
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#92 - 2011-10-12 16:41:06 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
Cearain wrote:
The problem with the curent system (and why many people refer to fw as broken), achieving the overarching goal was based on pve skill not pvp skill so no one really cared about it. It wasn't an accomplishment people valued.
Agreed.
You agree and then want to use Incursion mechanics for occupancy? (PvE) I don't get it. Please explain.

Cearain's main point in two years of threads are that NPCs are bad and shouldn't be a part of the occupancy mechanic. He still wants ship limited combat and for people to orbit buttons for a set amount of time. The one decent idea he has is to notify militia that a plex has been opened, but what he nor anybody else does not quite comprehend is this:

Players don't fight if they don't think they can win.

What happens when the other side disengages and leaves you hanging with no pvp? Sit on timer like he suggests? That's where his proposals fall short every time.

Your suggestion w.r.t incursions is decent even though it involves NPCs because your group will have something rewarding to do if the other side decides not to fight.


You could do something similar with FW missions for example. Layering different ways of achieving occupancy would be great.
1. FW missions for occupancy - Agents send you out on missions with 80% chance of happening in a given constellation.
2. Poison pills in FW missions allow griefers to ruin mission.

This has all the elements of what an occupancy mechanic should be:
1. Conflict over resources,
2. decisive end game if mission team bails,
3. Rewards if defenders don't engage.
(Plus, ship limited combat (L1 though L4 missions) )

Too risky for stealth bombing carebears. Players would have to band together in gangs/fleets to make isk. Very little modification in coding by devs.

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#93 - 2011-10-12 17:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
X Gallentius wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Cearain wrote:
The problem with the curent system (and why many people refer to fw as broken), achieving the overarching goal was based on pve skill not pvp skill so no one really cared about it. It wasn't an accomplishment people valued.
Agreed.
You agree and then want to use Incursion mechanics for occupancy? (PvE) I don't get it. Please explain.



Incursion Mission System is NOT A PVE Mechanic.


The NPCs inside are PVE. The Incursion mechanic itself is FAR ABOVE and BEYOND that.


If you don't understand, then you haven't run Incursions. If you have run incursions and you can't separate the idea of shooting NPCs and Constellations being UNDER ASSAULT from the Sansha, then you're looking at it the WRONG way.


Imagine the Sansha could TAKE OVER the constellation if the players fail to conquer it. Forget about the PVE and PVP. Imagine that if you failed to defend a constellation, the next day you'd wake up in the solar system and SUDDENLY everything had Sansha mega NPCs running around ruining your day, making the system impossible to use.

FORGET about the idea that they're NPCs and focus on the idea of ATTACKING and DEFENDING a constellation, and having contestable plexes be the central focus for the fighting. Now imagine if players had a reason to attack and defend those plexes, and now you end up with PVP.

THE IDEAS PRESENTED IN MY CONCEPT THREAD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PVE, NPCS, OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN GETTING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE SAME PLACE TO FIGHT EACH OTHER.


I'm tired of hearing people say that my ideas have ANYTHING to do with PVE as a central focus of FW.


I have added a disclaimer to the first post in this thread :

Quote:
THIS THREAD MAKES REFERENCES TO THE INCURSION MISSION SYSTEM - THE CONTEXT IS TO USE IT TO GENERATE PVP, NOT PVE CONTENT. READ THE MATERIAL CAREFULLY. THANK YOU.

Where I am.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#94 - 2011-10-12 17:15:54 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
If a player doesn't shoot you (PvP), then what shoots you in an incursion?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#95 - 2011-10-12 17:17:00 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
If a player doesn't shoot you (PvP), then what does?



THIS THREAD MAKES REFERENCES TO THE INCURSION MISSION SYSTEM - THE CONTEXT IS TO USE IT TO GENERATE PVP, NOT PVE CONTENT. READ THE MATERIAL CAREFULLY. THANK YOU.

Where I am.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#96 - 2011-10-12 17:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Quote:
As you go in to start destroying industrials and NPCs with the new AI (who are scaled down in difficulty to properly represent a fair challenge, rather than an Incursion level challenge).
Not saying your idea is bad (it's pretty good), just that it has PvE elements in it.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#97 - 2011-10-12 17:35:48 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Quote:
As you go in to start destroying industrials and NPCs with the new AI (who are scaled down in difficulty to properly represent a fair challenge, rather than an Incursion level challenge).
Not saying your idea is bad (it's pretty good), just that it has PvE elements in it.



The NPC references I made can be replaced by anything really and it would be the same thing. Shoot Objective A, Interact with Objective B, etc.


The goal is to generate PVP, not PVE. The goal is to make PVP interactable locations the focus of LP and ISK rewards. SItting on a timer is stupid and boring. Something that makes it more challenging to complete the objective would be preferential. If that means NPCs spawn for you to shoot, then let's do that, if it means Containers to drop stuff in, let's do that.


Writing it in a way that creates a story, in essence is going to require NPCs on some level. Faction Warfare is an NPC war, in the end. So, regardless of how much "you" care for that as an FW pilot in the war, it's just the inavoidable premise. If a pilot doesn't want to deal with NPCs on SOME level, then they need to stop complaining about NPCs and go to Null Sec and fight out there.



Where I am.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#98 - 2011-10-12 17:43:00 UTC
What I like about your idea is that it's objective based that doesn't involve orbiting a button for a set period of time. Also, when one side decides not to engage (which is going to happen quite a bit when the sides are not evenly matched), your side has something to do.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#99 - 2011-10-12 18:00:50 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
What I like about your idea is that it's objective based that doesn't involve orbiting a button for a set period of time. Also, when one side decides not to engage (which is going to happen quite a bit when the sides are not evenly matched), your side has something to do.




I think that's the major question in my system, which I am wondering why anyone hasn't really addressed. Regardless of NPCs or not, how often can you get a fight in there, balanced or otherwise, and how do you balance the ISK + LP rewards to match that. One idea is to increase ISK + LP reward for the more ships you end up competing with in the site - but then how do you make sure the system isn't "gamed" by both sides. "Take plex 1, we'll watch you complete, etc".


That is probably the more difficult question in my proposal idea.

Where I am.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#100 - 2011-10-12 18:38:46 UTC
That's the problem with adding direct rewards for plexing, it will be abused/gamed to hell and back within five minutes of going live unless the activity is made such a chore as to be utterly useless.

All hope is not lost though: Solution is to borrow the Incursions payout mechanic where the rewards are only paid out in case of a successful campaign. Set a time limit on how long a campaign has before being declared 'failed' (like Incursions time outs), combined with some way for us to specify where plexes should spawn and Bob's your uncle.