These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FW: I-hub and system upgrades

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rengerel en Distel
#301 - 2012-09-01 21:56:24 UTC
I have to wonder as well if these changes are enough to warrant a reset. Perhaps remove the docking penalty for a week to allow people to move items or take the systems back. As it stands, it seems people are going to try and do one last T5 cash out the day before the expansion hits, then try and sit on the systems. With the extra time it'll take to flip a system, someone sitting at T5 may very well stay there forever.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#302 - 2012-09-01 23:10:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuehnelt
Mutnin wrote:
Added to this we usually get 1 shot maybe 2 if the other side doesn't fight back a month to convert our LP into ISK. On top of this the time frame for ISK conversion usually only lasts 1 maybe 2 hours if you are lucky, then you are out of luck til the next dump. Meaning the LP farmers that are on 23.5/7 are usually the only ones befitting.


No, the 'push for a cashout' system is going away altogether. Instead of getting the same amount of LP but having it be worth more or less depending on your warzone control, you'll get less or more LP depending on your warzone control.

Mutnin wrote:
FW was about casual game play with easy access to PVP and a decent way to make ISK to support that PVP. With missions even though I hated them, I could cash out my LP's when it was convenient for "ME". I didn't have to hope I could be around for a once a month LP dump, then find out I couldn't get online til a hour late or I have to work that day.


Yeah, this is all returning to FW. Casual gameplay with easy access to PVP and a decent way to make ISK to support that PVP via LP that you can cash out when it's convenient for you. Even at tier 1.

Mutnin wrote:
This whole thing has killed any sort of casual gameplay & has made PVP nothing but chasing farmers in gun-less ships. What do you plan to do about that?


See the changes in the other thread: the era of gunless frigs soloing majors is over. You'll only have to worry about chasing farmers out of their own plexes... well, at least you won't have to worry about farmers locking you out of a station, yeah?
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2012-09-01 23:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks, It has been quite a while since our last update on this topic, mainly due to summer vacations then inertia time to get back into shape, but we are now back alive and kicking. There are many excellent points expressed on this post that I will first address. Once that is done, we will then move on intended improvements we want to bring to the table for winter. There has been plenty of internal discussions, brainstormings about them, and after receiving feedback from the CSM we are ready to unveil changes for public review. Please note that we will only address system upgrade and war zone control mechanics here. NPC and complex revamp will be announced in that thread. THREAD FEEDBACK: [list]
  • Q: ONE OF THE REASONS FOR LOW-SECURITY SPACE BEING CRAP REMAINS THAT HIGH-SECURITY STATIONS ARE TOO GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE, DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO ADJUST THIS? A: Indeed we do. This topic brought quite an internal discussion, and while this most likely won't be part of a Factional Warfare iteration, we do want to have a look at reducing high-security stations effectiveness to make other areas of space more interesting. Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs. Nothing is set in stone as this is not planned for the immediate future however. Another good idea we noticed here was to tie high-security tax with the war performance of its related Factional Warfare Militia. So if, by example, the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort.
    • Why is it that every time that CCP
    Quote:
    wants make other areas of space more interesting
    the first goto tool in their toolbox it to nerf Hisec? If you want to make an area of the game more attractive to players then do that...don't make Hisec ugly! I have long puzzled (or at least as long as I've played the game) why it is that CCP wants to force players into a play style that they are not interested in. As the thoughts expressed by you here
    Quote:
    Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs
    really dont jibe with how civilization works. It is the "Hisec" areas of the world that have the word of law and order, where high tech manufacturing and pure refining of materials occur . High technology manufacturing does not occur in areas where there is lawlessness or where there is no infrastructure or population to support it. Much as in real the real world it's accepted that rare minerals and materials are more available in losec or nullsec...where they have yet to be discovered. As to the concept of
    Quote:
    the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort
    Perhaps the example of many US firms can be followed I'll just move to someone else's space where the hisec tax is cheaper.
    Yes I'm a Carebear! Bear

    I like to mine (ok so I mostly spend the time sitting in the Orca doing my nails).

    I like to build things (I make the best damn Talos and Tornados in the game).

    I like to sell what I make (and yes I'm not above moving what I make to losec or nullsec to make profit).

    I like to invent things (now there's a mechanic that needs fixing and oh I want my datacores back!).

    But I have no interest in living in losec or nullsec .

    So let the Flames and Trolls begin!

    Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
    Weasel Juice
    Mayhem and Destruction
    #304 - 2012-09-02 00:14:24 UTC
    Lady Gwendolyn Antollare wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Hey folks, It has been quite a while since our last update on this topic, mainly due to summer vacations then inertia time to get back into shape, but we are now back alive and kicking. There are many excellent points expressed on this post that I will first address. Once that is done, we will then move on intended improvements we want to bring to the table for winter. There has been plenty of internal discussions, brainstormings about them, and after receiving feedback from the CSM we are ready to unveil changes for public review. Please note that we will only address system upgrade and war zone control mechanics here. NPC and complex revamp will be announced in that thread. THREAD FEEDBACK: [list]
  • Q: ONE OF THE REASONS FOR LOW-SECURITY SPACE BEING CRAP REMAINS THAT HIGH-SECURITY STATIONS ARE TOO GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE, DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO ADJUST THIS? A: Indeed we do. This topic brought quite an internal discussion, and while this most likely won't be part of a Factional Warfare iteration, we do want to have a look at reducing high-security stations effectiveness to make other areas of space more interesting. Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs. Nothing is set in stone as this is not planned for the immediate future however. Another good idea we noticed here was to tie high-security tax with the war performance of its related Factional Warfare Militia. So if, by example, the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort.
    • Why is it that every time that CCP
    Quote:
    wants make other areas of space more interesting
    the first goto tool in their toolbox it to nerf Hisec? If you want to make an area of the game more attractive to players then do that...don't make Hisec ugly! I have long puzzled (or at least as long as I've played the game) why it is that CCP wants to force players into a play style that they are not interested in. As the thoughts expressed by you here
    Quote:
    Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs
    really dont jibe with how civilization works. It is the "Hisec" areas of the world that have the word of law and order, where high tech manufacturing and pure refining of materials occur . High technology manufacturing does not occur in areas where there is lawlessness or where there is no infrastructure or population to support it. Much as in real the real world it's accepted that rare minerals and materials are more available in losec or nullsec...where they have yet to be discovered. As to the concept of
    Quote:
    the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort
    Perhaps the example of many US firms can be followed I'll just move to someone else's space where the hisec tax is cheaper.
    Yes I'm a Carebear! Bear

    I like to mine (ok so I mostly spend the time sitting in the Orca doing my nails).

    I like to build things (I make the best damn Talos and Tornados in the game).

    I like to sell what I make (and yes I'm not above moving what I make to losec or nullsec to make profit).

    I like to invent things (now there's a mechanic that needs fixing and oh I want my datacores back!).

    But I have no interest in living in losec or nullsec .

    So let the Flames and Trolls begin!


    Fine. You start comparing reallife with EVE, let me play Captain Obvious for you. EVE is a game that defies our laws of physics and reality for purposes of gameplay and balance.

    There you have it. Pretty much nullifies half your posting.
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #305 - 2012-09-02 00:36:23 UTC
    A better economic example in real life would be the outsourcing we see to economies like China. Cheap labour. Easy manufacturing and less laws. Compare that to labour unions, permits and taxes needed on everything, ect. And China might try to steal your intellectual property too, so it's very much like low-sec! Blink
    McReaction
    Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
    Sedition.
    #306 - 2012-09-02 01:46:15 UTC  |  Edited by: McReaction
    Mutnin wrote:
    Trash the whole upgrades thing and just put everything back the way it was before..

    Upgrades do not last long enough to be worth while and it the whole thing is like watching a dog chase his tale. Upgrades are worthless and don't last.. Who gives a crap about clone costs & manufacture slots in the middle of low sec when people can farm a few billion isk in a week worth of LP.

    Added to this we usually get 1 shot maybe 2 if the other side doesn't fight back a month to convert our LP into ISK. On top of this the time frame for ISK conversion usually only lasts 1 maybe 2 hours if you are lucky, then you are out of luck til the next dump. Meaning the LP farmers that are on 23.5/7 are usually the only ones befitting.

    The whole upgrade system is a stupid concept and and the benefits are useless.. Honestly do you really think anyone is using manufacture slots when they can cash in a few million LP's for their isk?


    FW was about casual game play with easy access to PVP and a decent way to make ISK to support that PVP. With missions even though I hated them, I could cash out my LP's when it was convenient for "ME". I didn't have to hope I could be around for a once a month LP dump, then find out I couldn't get online til a hour late or I have to work that day.


    This whole thing has killed any sort of casual gameplay & has made PVP nothing but chasing farmers in gun-less ships. What do you plan to do about that?


    Dude you are forgetting the big picture, combine the changes! apparently you did not notice the plex changes due to your last statement.... Go do your homework!

    "Added to this we usually get 1 shot maybe 2 if the other side...."
    Coordination, communication and teamwork is part of the game and life.... use it!

    "The whole upgrade system is a stupid concept...."
    -It- being stupid is a matter of personal preference, it currently encourages a greater level of teamwork than ever before.
    Industry bonuses: some people do prefer having an industrial backbone for cheap ships instead of getting ripped off in the market hubs...

    "FW was about casual game play with easy access to PVP"
    It's pro pvp aswell as casual, it's all about how you play it, and the gun-less ships problem solved with plex changes and lastly.... It always sucks losing out on the Tier 5 push and cashing out, just like it sucks loosing out on "great" pvp, but then again what did Tier 4 ever do to you? ;D
    Synthetic Cultist
    Church of The Crimson Saviour
    #307 - 2012-09-02 08:28:32 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    we do want to have a look at reducing high-security stations effectiveness to make other areas of space more interesting. Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs. Nothing is set in stone as this is not planned for the immediate future however. Another good idea we noticed here was to tie high-security tax with the war performance of its related Factional Warfare Militia. So if, by example, the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort.


    You have to be careful with these ideas:

    Reduced refine rates and/or more ISK to install industry jobs will affect new players going through the tutorial missions. The new player stations can't have better refining rates than other highsec stations, or cheaper payments, because then new players would get crowded out by older players.

    A seperate refine rate for ore and scrap metal might be useful. There would also be odd effects on prices for items, and insurance rates.

    With a max refine rate of say 75%, a ship that takes 100M ISK of minerals to build, the scrap value of that ship is 75M, and buy orders would rarely be above that. With the 0.01 isk game and "minerals I mine are free" mindset, then there will be ships on sale at less than 100M, which may have an effect on insurance rates, possibly even reintroducing the self destruct for insurance money silliness.

    ISK payments for jobs are already much cheaper in lowsec than highsec anyway, you can see this with lab costs. A lab slot in a station in Fricoure (highsec) is 3487 ISK per hour, in Rorsins (0.1 sec) it is 8 ISK per hour.

    It might be better for ISK payments, build times, for science/industry jobs in highsec to have other limits.
    Tech two build costs/times in highsec stations could be altered to make lowsec and POS manufacturing more attractive, generating player conflicts over POS and in lowsec.
    Maybe even prevent Tech2 from being built in highsec stations? Extreme measure though.


    High sec taxes being dependent on FW are a potential problem, because of such things as the Jita effect. There would be a very strong incentive for groups that have moon products and other high value items traded in Jita, to ensure that taxes in Jita are kept low, to prevent losing billions in ISK through taxes. They would have a huge incentive to support/join the Caldari militia.
    On the opposing side, the trade hub in Dodixie would tend to have higher taxes, because there is less incentive to support the Gallente militia, which may reduce Dodixie's viability as a trade hub. "lol dodixie", but it is something to consider.

    Synthia 1, Empress of Kaztropol.

    It is Written.
    Bad Messenger
    Rehabilitation Clinic
    #308 - 2012-09-02 12:00:03 UTC
    I do not like the whole idea that CCP changes FW again radically and then leaves us waiting for fixes for several years.

    This new change should fix problems, but i doubt it does not work at all, so soon we have non working FW that no one is interested about and CCP is not monitoring it or even trying to fix anymore.

    These changes will change FW form taking systems to get tier5 lp shop, to holding systems for better lp gain. But question is that who will take any systems if you are at tier 1, you will get 5000 lp and that is only 5000 lp on current tier 3 lp shop so it is same than 1250lp now on tier 5 shop. And if enemy gets 30000lp at same time who will grind on loser side?

    CCP nerfs those low sp alts who made it possible to even take systems and leaves free load to have free wardec.

    Also getting LP from defending and making it possible to grief plex capturing with speed tank alts makes it impossible to take any systems really.

    Combined with ship restrictions where you can have logistics and t2 ewar ships in cruiser sized fight makes it all some sort of armor hac warfare and leaving t1 cruisers mostly useless in FW.
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #309 - 2012-09-02 12:24:31 UTC
    Susan Black's Number Crunch

    This is an interesting read.
    Rengerel en Distel
    #310 - 2012-09-02 12:52:32 UTC
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    Susan Black's Number Crunch

    This is an interesting read.


    I think the numbers involve a lot of assumptions we just don't have the facts to assume, but overall a good read.

    I think the bleed rate is going to be too slow as stated, and will have to be increased. It'll just be a matter of if it's increased while still on sisi, or not until after one side has a major advantage on TQ with a firm grasp on the warzone.

    I agree with you that the missions will need to be removed from the bonus level structure, or nerfed enough that even with the bonus it's better to be out plexing.

    Perhaps it's time to remove getting LP for doing sister militia sites as well. You could still get standing increases, and help the other side with their warzone control, but you'd stop making your own LP doing it.

    With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #311 - 2012-09-02 14:59:30 UTC
    I don't think the LP gained from missions will have the same multiplier as plexes. Therefore, the "New missions" line in Susan's blog should be "flat", right?

    @CCP - Will LP payouts for missions be affected by Warzone control level?
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #312 - 2012-09-02 15:29:02 UTC
    Rengerel en Distel wrote:


    Perhaps it's time to remove getting LP for doing sister militia sites as well. You could still get standing increases, and help the other side with their warzone control, but you'd stop making your own LP doing it.
    You don't get standings increase.
    Lili Lu
    #313 - 2012-09-02 15:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
    Synthetic Cultist wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    we do want to have a look at reducing high-security stations effectiveness to make other areas of space more interesting. Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs. Nothing is set in stone as this is not planned for the immediate future however. Another good idea we noticed here was to tie high-security tax with the war performance of its related Factional Warfare Militia. So if, by example, the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort.


    You have to be careful with these ideas:

    Reduced refine rates and/or more ISK to install industry jobs will affect new players going through the tutorial missions. The new player stations can't have better refining rates than other highsec stations, or cheaper payments, because then new players would get crowded out by older players.

    A seperate refine rate for ore and scrap metal might be useful. There would also be odd effects on prices for items, and insurance rates.

    With a max refine rate of say 75%, a ship that takes 100M ISK of minerals to build, the scrap value of that ship is 75M, and buy orders would rarely be above that. With the 0.01 isk game and "minerals I mine are free" mindset, then there will be ships on sale at less than 100M, which may have an effect on insurance rates, possibly even reintroducing the self destruct for insurance money silliness.

    ISK payments for jobs are already much cheaper in lowsec than highsec anyway, you can see this with lab costs. A lab slot in a station in Fricoure (highsec) is 3487 ISK per hour, in Rorsins (0.1 sec) it is 8 ISK per hour.

    It might be better for ISK payments, build times, for science/industry jobs in highsec to have other limits.
    Tech two build costs/times in highsec stations could be altered to make lowsec and POS manufacturing more attractive, generating player conflicts over POS and in lowsec.
    Maybe even prevent Tech2 from being built in highsec stations? Extreme measure though.


    High sec taxes being dependent on FW are a potential problem, because of such things as the Jita effect. There would be a very strong incentive for groups that have moon products and other high value items traded in Jita, to ensure that taxes in Jita are kept low, to prevent losing billions in ISK through taxes. They would have a huge incentive to support/join the Caldari militia.
    On the opposing side, the trade hub in Dodixie would tend to have higher taxes, because there is less incentive to support the Gallente militia, which may reduce Dodixie's viability as a trade hub. "lol dodixie", but it is something to consider.

    Excellent post. It would be incredibly dense to boost Jita and the Caldari militia with changes like these.Ugh The State Protectorate is already the largest of the militias ffs.

    Essentially you would be forcing the high sec dwellers to take part in FW either directly or indirectly. Now if the game was new it might not be so bad, at least at first. However, we are a decade almost into a game where the majority of the population is in Caldari hi-sec space and Jita is the top trade hub. Implementing this would only further concentrate population and wealth in Jita and Caldari space. DON'T DO THIS.
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #314 - 2012-09-02 16:16:18 UTC
    If Black's numbers hold and assumptions are not completely wrong, then:

    - Defensive LP is a major No-go. The idea that a steamroller can make more defending than the underdog can attacking is just wrong, especially since CCP wants everyone to be on the offensive constantly (stated design goal).
    Replace with timer automatically returning to zero/level when hostile is evicted and maybe apply a portion of the LP directly to iHub when defender invests the time to cap it .. benefit from defending should be that one wants to for 'wider' bonuses and not for an direct ISK/LP infusion )is pretty much risk free after all).
    - Make it impossible to 'invest' LP in a system that has lost a plex to enemy forces in the last 12-24 hours. Should help counter the difficulty the anaemic/underdog has making headway.
    - Double or triple bleed percentage. Between doubling buffer and cutting 80% off bleed, making so much of a dent in a LP/pilot/alt flush militias WZC is a practical impossibility. Should help counter the difficulty the anaemic/underdog has making headway.
    - Missions to hostile systems and hostile systems only. I am guessing this has not been implemented due to the whole sovereignty entry being cosmetic in nature (ie. server still considers a captured system as being of opposing Empire).
    - Cut LP earned "abroad" to 10-25%. Just enough to act as incentive to help one another but not enough to warrant having a permanent presence .. bring our troops alts home!
    - There is entirely too much ISK/LP involved in FW presently (FarmWars™), one does not and should not go to war to make wads of cash while fighting. Enough to make ends meet for the regular Joe, if noticeable profit is to be had it should be from killing/dying.
    Reduce LP awards across the board, make exploding hostile militia ships drop a majority of its content (read: Boost the loot fairy) and spawn trade-able, destructible tags in PvP wrecks that can be exchanged for LP at militia station (in addition to LP-for-Kills award).

    Idea should be to not only make it harder and harder (read: expensive in ISK/hours) to maintain the higher tiers, but also make the income available for a steamroller involve increasing risk plus of course to make it more about pew than orbiting buttons.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #315 - 2012-09-02 16:28:48 UTC
    One more thing: The will of players to defensive plex is larger than it first appears. However, getting completely overwhelmed by plexing alts made it impossible to make any real progress and therefore people stopped doing it. So anyways, with these changes I suspect it will be a very stagnant map. So, bottom line - cut down the LP for defensive plexing to something supplemental - not farmable.
    RavenPaine
    RaVeN Alliance
    #316 - 2012-09-02 17:11:15 UTC


    Many people joined FW because it had a good payout scheme. I'm talking about pilots that want decent ISK so they can fly nice ships. not farm alts.
    The farm alts caused a game-wide economic rift, and also a FW warzone control mess. But without the farm alts, FW membership was increasing and the original 'desired effect' was achieved.

    The new system feels like it may not have the same LP incentives available. If it doesn't, then we will see a mass exit of players that have a higher standard of piloting. Smaller membership will lead to stagnant warzone changes and perpetual tier one values. Less players will not be able to upgrade or buff systems.
    Andre Vauban
    Federal Defense Union
    Gallente Federation
    #317 - 2012-09-02 17:34:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    WINTER ITERATIONS

  • CYNO JAMMER

    • As you can see above, the Cyno Jammer is back with a vengeance. However we took into consideration the feedback we received during Fanfest and various community channels, and it would work as mentioned below.


    * Bought from FW LP stores as 1 BPC (total cost including manufacturing materials estimated around 100-130m ISK)
    * Has only 25% hitpoints of the null-security Cyno Jammer version (thus about 4 million HPs instead of 16)
    * Cyno Jammer is launched from the ship cargohold and deployed into space, requires the "config starbase equipment" role (this technically restricts all NPC militia members to launch such a structure - you have to be in an enlisted player made corporation)
    * Cyno Jammer requires a spool-up time (5 or 10 minutes)
    * Cyno Jammer automatically turn online once spool-up timer has passed, causing its effects to be activated for the specified amount of time
    * May only be anchored when proper system upgrade has been met
    * Only one Cyno Jammer may be anchored per solar system
    * Cyno Jammer needs to be launched near the system Infrastructure Hub (between 5 and 10km)

    Working conditions:

    * An anchored Cyno Jammer automatically turns online after the spool-up period and works for 1 hour
    * Deployed Cyno Jammer is automatically unanchored and destroyed if the solar system upgrade level goes below minimum requirements while it is active
    * Deployed Cyno Jammer automatically unanchors and self-destructs once their lifetime has expired
    * Cyno Jammers are considered as militia objects and may be shot by the opposing factions without any consequence (neutrals can shoot them but have to take a security status hit)
    * Has same effect than null-security version - prevents Cynosural Fields to be created in the solar system as long as it is active


    Many thanks for reading this huuuuuge wall of text, constructive comments are welcome Twisted


    Please, please, please don't implement the cyno jammers. This is a band-aid solution to the power projection problem. All the sov holding alliances will simply put alts into each of the four militia's and they will use the jammers more than FW corps/alliances.

    What FW folks really want is to be able to have a capital fight without being hotdropped by PL or NCDOT with supers 5-10 minutes into the fight simply because they are bored silly and they have the logistics in place to get anywhere in Eve very quickly. A cyno jammer will prevent this from happening, but it will also prevent the fight from happening in the first place. No FW corp will want to engage in a fight that could require their own caps in an enemy system where a jammer could go up mid fight. All it will create is massive capital usage by militias who like to use their capitals against somebody who cannot counter drop them. After a few battles, there will be no more BS fights in FW because nobody will engage in the enemy factions space.

    CCP, you need to fix the root problem of power projection, not slap a band-aid on the problem. I have one suggestion here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1297883#post1297883. It's flawed, but it might generate some better ideas.

    .
    Vyktor Abyss
    Abyss Research
    #318 - 2012-09-02 19:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyktor Abyss
    Back again just to pick up on X Gall's point about the will to defensive plex.

    It is actually quite a fun experience logging on after a day or two to see what has been going on in your home system on the plex front.

    I personally chose Fliet (next to Heydellies) a while back as my main base and over the last week or so it has consistently been one of the most contested remaining Gallente systems. I find myself strangely motivated to chase down the farmers and quite a fun little 3 way pew game has developed with the regular pirates that have spotted this little hive of activity. If only more systems in FW were like this you'd all be having more fun.

    The system is slowly creeping up towards vulnerable at last check yesterday, but that also has to do with Gallente running out of other contested systems, and hence more farming alts are coming there to 'have an effect', but equally I''ve been discouraging more and more from their easy LP with guns and chasing them off and stuff.

    Strange considering I hate plexing, I get zero LP for my efforts and couldn't be bothered doing plexing for years before Inferno - but now there is something worth doing it for (losing docking rights) it is actually quite fun.

    The new system will pretty much kill this - will I ever plex for 20 minutes in a Major for 1% back? Yes. Will I do it for the proposed 10 times less reward of roughly 0.1% per major? Not a friggin chance.... with bells on.

    This is just one of the interesting dynamics that CCP introduced with Inferno, that they will be changing things so that one person can't really have any realistic effect any more. It becomes more about the tide of players since swings are 10x harder or slower to happen which is much less motivating.

    From here I'm going to give my suggestions so perhaps CCP wont just think I'm just some nay-sayer but rather a player who just wants a better game to play....[ and yes I'm aware my playstyle is not the same as everyone else in FW but I believe I'm a fairly a-typical FW vet, just perhaps with more experience and a better sense of fair play than most...]

    The ideal desired solution from CCP in my opinion would be:


    • Plexers forced into real combat fitted ships for running plexes so more actual pew happens. (moving the button is a good start, killing all the NPCs better, a NPC rebalance is good theory but poor execution as proposed, and making all tags actually useful can't hurt either so LP is useless without them)

    • Duration to flip systems remains roughly the same.

    • Tier bonuses scaling much less dramatically so cashout at tier 3 is perhaps only 50% less efficient than Tier 5.    (Tiers having knock on effects to empires though would be interesting but making it just about tax would ruin it when the "dont f*ck with Jita taxes" posse all join Caldari FW).

    • System upgrades should be more than LP dumps into an i-hub and should be actual physical upgrades (from FW LP store BPCs) people plant to upgrade the system - these upgrade structures become vulnerable and destructable as offensive plexers contest the system but get maybe 1/4 of the defensive plex LP put back into its total with the player getting no LP themselves for defense. system upgrade LP values would need increasing by a factor of 2 or upto 4 times the current amounts.

    • Proper useful and interesting upgrades chosen from some ability tree in the ihub appeals a lot to me. A wide variety of upgrades enables customisation of systems - For example one set of upgrades could focus on increasing the chance of wormholes of a specific type in that system, like more lowsec to Null or lowsec to lowsec or whatever. (CCP, your observation that there is no 'focus' or 'organisation' in FW is fairly correct for a snapshot in time right now. This does not mean that as players, with the right mechanics enabling the players to 'develop' systems like in Null they would not coordinate more efforts into upgrading systems in more methodical ways..... You're actually promoting your old "viceroyalty" concept for lowsec by doing this.)

    • Vulnerability LP farming tackled as newly proposed with no LP given for plexing vulnerable systems nor any LP from defending uncontested systems

    • A wider variety of missions with more of a pvp focus that are not 'blitzable' but also impact on the warzone.An agent that hands out a misison to run 2 or 3 plexes and attack an upgrade in a specific system would be more fun and less isolated in terms of boxed off gameplay.

    • Some sort of militia ruling council, or coordinating body with powers to kick players from their own militia NPC corps. (A body that 'should' be intolerant of abuse of their own power is necessary here so only the 'good guys' rule)

    • Objectives and targets of scale for whole corporations or individuals. As an Example it could be some focus set by militia ruling council, along with appropriate rewards from some monthly LP budget the coucil control - this could scale from complete 5 minor offensive plexes and 5 minor defensive in systems X and Y for some new guy; right up to inflict 10 capital kills on the opposition and capture and upgrade to 5 the entire Jeon constellation or whatever for some major alliance. The game mechanics supporting this that use actual game statistics is vital here, because any 'out of game' method for overseeing this becomes a nightmare because of the metagame. An in game authority with access to the information and mechanics to set these objectives and monitor their progress in game is vital.

    • Lots of other content and ideas that I would share but I now realise I'm rambling off on a tangent from my original post about what X Gall said lol.

    Wall of text /The end. (My brainfart comments and opinions of suggestions are in brackets and italics)
    Alticus C Bear
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #319 - 2012-09-02 20:26:53 UTC
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    Susan Black's Number Crunch

    This is an interesting read.


    I think her round up towards the end of the blog is good.

    Not sure if the initial maths stacks up as she seems to using a set lp isk conversation ratio for old and new mechanics. This may not take into account the current isk reductions we get in lp stores that will be missing in the future.

    Also suggesting players can do 3 majors an hour is perhaps possible under current frigate farming mechanics but does not really account for scouting, interruptions and pvp in the future with the plex changes.

    In the future warzone level will also need to be maintained. At the moment no lp is lost by a militia when the hub is empty and this is how they are left. In the future a bigger portion of lp wil be required to be invested to maintain upgrades or lose tier levels this reduces the amount of lp available for conversation to isk.

    Defensive plexing rewards and reduced bleed could mitigate the above hence the much lower bleed level but defensive plexing just feels like a bad mechanic as a whole. 

    I also would suggest it is wrong to suggest that the new lower tiers are more profitable than the existing. urrent mechanics allow me to cash out at a higher tier while in the proposals you always cash out at the current level. Proposed tier 2 is not better than current tier4 which is where I have been cashing out and where I expect the gallente militia to be.

    It is an income nerf even for genuine FW players. 

    Jesters blog also contains an interesting overview.
    Spc One
    The Chodak
    Void Alliance
    #320 - 2012-09-03 01:10:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Spc One
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    • Q: ONE OF THE REASONS FOR LOW-SECURITY SPACE BEING CRAP REMAINS THAT HIGH-SECURITY STATIONS ARE TOO GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE, DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO ADJUST THIS?

      • A: Indeed we do. This topic brought quite an internal discussion, and while this most likely won't be part of a Factional Warfare iteration, we do want to have a look at reducing high-security stations effectiveness to make other areas of space more interesting. Some examples could be reducing refining rates, increasing ISK payment to install jobs. Nothing is set in stone as this is not planned for the immediate future however. Another good idea we noticed here was to tie high-security tax with the war performance of its related Factional Warfare Militia. So if, by example, the Caldari Militia are losing the war in Factional Warfare, all taxes in Caldari State high-security space could go up to support the war effort.


    Again, you're breaking the game even more than it is.
    Just give low sec station better stats instead of nerfing high sec stations.
    So basicly make low sec stations more effective and better than high sec, leave high sec as it is.