These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Intaki Kauyon
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2012-10-23 21:06:46 UTC
With Inferno, coordinating a faction to sacrifice some LP one time as a whole to upgrade systems for a “Cash Out” made some sense. And no one grunted as hand over fist earning versus very little sacrifice. A player will happily depart from 10 to 50K in LP so that their extra LP goes to decreased sales costs so long as dozens of other players are doing it as well.

In actual practice, I’m not sure that FW really were keeping up with LP donations for the benefits other than one time cash outs.

With these costs now increasing by double and the clear fact that we as a faction won’t be just doing it one time, but actually having to keep up system levels for tier advantages to LP gain, it seems more than blatantly obvious that there will be a fundamental flaw.

If previously you could only get players to barely in small groups sacrifice LP for a one-time cash out, what chance do you have that players will donate twice as much LP to just maintain tiers?

LP donating for system upgrades is the flaw itself. There should be another control. Using the toils and labor of the minority that actually care about FW presence so that the majority can benefit is just not going to take place.

No matter what benefits and changes you make to the upgrades, it’s more important that you remove the LP donation as the control for upgrades. I’m not sure I see this pointed out enough.
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#542 - 2012-10-26 06:10:39 UTC
Some feedback to the new fw patch:
GREAT WORK!!!!
A little bit late but great patch.
You will see still great amounts of defensive plexing but that will be only during the next weeks until metropolis and caldari space isn´t contested any more.
After that defensive plexing will be almost as dangerous as it was while we were defending kourmonen some days ago.
Amarr still would need plexers. Tbh we need plexers.
Agony has lost Kourm yesterday because they didn´t want any defensive plexing any more. I was also sick of it.
But especially plexers are sth that the minmatar do not lack. Like you see it in Metropolis at the moment. All systems theat were vulnerable will be soon stable again.
I know that CCp sees still great amount of plexing (especially defensive plexing) but please do not nerf this.
The amounts will end until Metro and caldari space is mostly stable again.
After that most of the plexers will cash out and be gone.

Great work CCP.

Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
#543 - 2012-10-27 20:48:43 UTC
when dust comes out omg. :)
X Gallentius
Easy Eight
#544 - 2012-10-30 06:26:25 UTC
The next big farming issue will be FW missions because the LP multiplier due to tiers that skews everything out of whack. 30k LP/mission is generous, 80k+ LP/mission is overwhelming.

Yes, missions don't affect occupancy warfare, which is a good thing, but they are "infinite" and can be run nonstop. Farming alts will return to mssion running and even with the LP bonus at just Tier 2 (which every faction can attain), they will be omnipresent in all factions. Concentration of wealth through FW activities will continue.

The tier LP multipliers ought to be dampened down much more than they already were. They skew everyting about FW into a farming metagame. Part of the solution may be to remove the LP payout multiplier to FW missions.

Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#545 - 2012-10-30 07:51:22 UTC
^^ as above..

The tier multiplier should not apply to missions as missions don't affect the warzone in any way anyway.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#546 - 2012-10-30 13:03:43 UTC
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#547 - 2012-10-30 14:30:46 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
but what if they did?

Indeed.

Would be awesome if missions:
- Were restricted in destination to hostile held space.
- Applied some (or all) of their VP towards system occupancy.
(Should be careful not to allow it becoming easy mode when taking systems from a downtrodden though)
- Had poison pills to activate that wonderful fight profit or flight mechanism.

But it is so far down the list of things that is unlikely to be realised that it is pointless to debate. Factions within CCP are loathe/reluctant/scared of "forcing" people into a specific play style (PvP) and would have people who join a militia at war to grow flowers be allowed to tend their flowerbeds without the need of ever taking up arms (can't make this **** up .. hahahaha).

On a completely unrelated note:
Just spent some time studying the Amarr/Shakorite militia interface and the map/setup is even more lopsided than I realised.
Amarr are after the pre-patch flurry almost back to full system count, have upgraded most systems (not all fully) and are low tier2.
Minmatar have slightly more than 'base', have no upgraded systems that I can see and are high tier 3.

SORT THE DAMN MAP DISCREPANCY!
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#548 - 2012-10-30 14:32:58 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
but what if they did?


We would make faction war even more of a clash of carebears than it is now.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#549 - 2012-10-31 20:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Kuehnelt wrote:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Nobody enjoys reading a clogged thread dominated by someone who can't respect others once they've made their point about a particular issue.

When people are seen to be raising their voices, sometimes it's because they're just jerks, and sometimes it's because someone keeps raising the noise level with comments like "you don't like defensive LP because you want the underdog to starve."



Once you know the backstory you will see Hans isn’t so innocent as he pretends. Much of what hans is claiming is pretty much taken directly off of Susan Blacks blog. That blog is controversial/some even refer to it as a “troll blog” because it is basically just minmatar propaganda and often clearly based on false assumptions which are clearly indicated in the comments and other blogs.


These false assumptions are well pointed out in the comments to her blogs, often by those in amarr militia. Hans and susan, however, never mentions those arguments and just continue to repeat their conclusions. So I have to bring them up again and again.

Example one:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

There is simply no debate that a system that rewards winners and punishes losers financially will encourage profit-seekers to enlist in whichever militia is winning at the time. This sounds in theory like it would lead to "snowballing" and an unbreakable power monopoly over time. But the numbers show something a little different. As CCP disclosed at the summit, and as publicly available data shows,. the "army of plexing alts" that have joined Minmatar haven't really translated into a noticeable increase in plexing behavior The Amarr have been able to put forth as much warzone activity in terms of kills and victory points, despite the on-paper size advantage that the Minmatar have.



He ignored the fact that her analysis is completely flawed because many of the minmatar plexing alts were plexing in caldari space where they don’t get vp. But after amarr hit tier 4 and they had more backwaters to plex the vp numbers skyrocketed that week. Wehn this is taken inot account, the numbers do, in fact, show that the army of pelxing alts have translated into noticible increases in captured plexes.

He admitted he saw the comments that demonstrate why her analysis is flawed. So why then is he presenting it as if it is a valid conclusion without even acknowledging the large error in her analysis?

Example 2:

That amarr only made it to tier 4 due to our saviour nulli secunda coming in. This was another well known claim that was lifted off of susan and other minmatar trolls. It was pretty much shot down by people who kept track of the progress amarr was making before nulli even joined. It is also currently debunked by anyone who want to look at the current fw ui and see how many systems amarr has vulnerable. So why is hans repeating and not even attempting to address the problems with this theory?

Well I think its because its clear that the fact that amarr can make a comeback is due to no lp for defensive plexing. And the minmatar want very much to be able to continue to farm systems they already captured.

So Hans continues to try to feed the garbage line:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Most don't want to do this, and I want everyone to have the tools they need to pull themselves up from the bootstraps, ratcheting back up one tier at a time, instead of just phoning some powerful friends when the chips are down and you need a savior.


And several others like it.

Of course he never presents the good reasons to think amarr likely would have at least accomplished this without nulli, even though he read plenty of them. No he is not offering that side at all. That is why I have to post them again in this thread. Because he is only seeing one side of things.

Hans we already can pull ourselves up and have without any savior. Your system where people are immediately rewarded for piling on the winning side will not help the underdog. There will be no bootstraps to pull onto.

Which brings me to example three:

Right after inferno was released it was clear to susan that no lp for defensive plexing was going to be a thorn in minmatar’s side. It was going to mean amarr would likely be able to come back regardless of their current tier because the minmatar farmers work off greed. So she started making posts to change this on this forum, and made about 5 different blog posts trying to argue they should give lp for defensive plexing. Hans basically supported this the whole way through. Even though it was pointed out this would destroy the balance early on.

Even on his most recent blog post we see this:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

“*Defensive plexing - it blows. "Punishing" players for "winning too much" by boring them to death leads to a lot of people not wanting to play at all.”


Does he even mention the down sides of giving lp for defensive plexing? Not a bit.

Yet his concern that minmatar are being punished with inferno is right up there with the more drastic problems faction war faces.

I mean really hans, do you really think one of the major problems with inferno is that it punished minmatar too much for winning?

If Hans was objective and pointed out the disadvantages of these proposals I wouldn’t have to.But he doesn’t, so I have to go through all this stuff again and again. It is a bit exasperating when he pretends he has never heard about the problems with susans conclusions someone should point them out.

Seriously hans if you want to be seen as not biased stop parroting what susan black says wholesale without any mention of the well documented problems with her biased views.

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

Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#550 - 2012-10-31 21:40:04 UTC
/o\


Why so much tinfoil ?

I thought this might happen when we elected a FW CSM that thus HAD to be from one of the militias. But I never thought it'd be this bad...
Come one Cearain, you're almost at Poetic Stanzils level of hate and bitterness Straight.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#551 - 2012-10-31 21:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Sheynan wrote:
/o\


Why so much tinfoil ?

I thought this might happen when we elected a FW CSM that thus HAD to be from one of the militias. But I never thought it'd be this bad...
Come one Cearain, you're almost at Poetic Stanzils level of hate and bitterness Straight.



Not sure what you mean. That is what he actually said.

Sure enough the first thing addressed is the minmatar's view that they are being punished for winning too much.

Let me ask you:

How is it even possible that someone could conclude that the problem with inferno was it was punishing the winning side too much?

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

Rengerel en Distel
#552 - 2012-10-31 21:54:55 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
[
On a completely unrelated note:
Just spent some time studying the Amarr/Shakorite militia interface and the map/setup is even more lopsided than I realised.
Amarr are after the pre-patch flurry almost back to full system count, have upgraded most systems (not all fully) and are low tier2.
Minmatar have slightly more than 'base', have no upgraded systems that I can see and are high tier 3.

SORT THE DAMN MAP DISCREPANCY!


You don't see the upgraded system for the enemy militia. There are 70 systems, and you need 84 points to hit tier 2. So even if you had them all, it's impossible to hit tier 2 without upgrading, let alone 3 or higher.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#553 - 2012-11-01 07:25:41 UTC
The most important question is 'Why do we want to hold space?' This is a question for not only low sec but null sec as well. It's also a question that needs to be answered to make any upgrades in the FW system worthwhile.

Every blue moon I get in the mood for something slower and pull out Civilization V. That game to anyone who has played it is all about resources. With every new game they spawn randomly around the map. And every game I may find myself without some vital item that ill either have to trade or wage war to get. It's a pretty basic concept really.

With the exception of a few notable examples, there is little resource scarcity in Eve. Rather then ABC ores being all over high and low sec, there should be veins of specific ores that run from high to null sec. The more numerous the ore, the more numerous and deep the veins. Imagine if one if the rarer ores was present in the Amarr/ Minmatar war theater?

Concerned that no one would consider mining in low sec? CCP should think of new ships that would allow pilots a chance to pull it off. That is idea number one.

Idea number two is to spice up low and null with benefits and FW with combinations.

Industry:
Manufacturing jobs started in low sec require 5% less materials. Ore refined in low sec produces 5% less waste. In Null both of these bonuses become 10%.

Specific locations:
Station x in Eszur is famous for it's efficiency during the rebellion in churning out assault frigates. All Wolfs and Jaguars produced there require 5% less materials. (On top of low sec 5%)

Victory conditions:
Kamela has three tech moons around gas giant x. These moons are toxic due to the planet's abnormally large radiation belt. These moons are normally inaccessible. Every Minmatar system with a temperate planet conquered by the Amarr militia allows one tech moon to come into play. (Slave labor)

Last stand - militia is reduced to three systems. LP earned in those systems at triple rate. Adjacent systems at double.

War's momentum - whichever side owns Kourm, huola, and Auga gets 50% reduction in pos fuel throughout the region.

These are all just random ideas I'm throwing out there - hopefully you get the idea.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#554 - 2012-11-08 14:23:58 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone. I've got another FW update to our plan.

We've been getting a lot of feedback about problems with the geographical layout in the Amarr/Minmatar warzone. We spent some time discussing the options with players from both factions a few months ago, but we had not announced anything because we were not sure if we could fit it into our plan for the release.

While doing some triaging of the FW work to fit as much as possible into Retribution we realized that getting these geography changes in would have a good benefit to time ratio so we're putting it into the plan.

Our plan for the moment is to add three new jump gates to the warzone:

  • Kurniainen (Bleak Lands) to Isbrabata (Metropolis)
  • Siseide (Heimatar) to Eszur (Metropolis)
  • Gulmorogod (Heimatar) to Egmar (Metropolis)

Let us know what you think!

:Edit: Cearain and Marcel below had the excellent idea of posting the link to Dotlan's map of the warzone. I really should have included that with the post so I'm going to shamelessly steal the idea from them just in case people don't read down two posts.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#555 - 2012-11-08 14:30:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. I've got another FW update to our plan.

We've been getting a lot of feedback about problems with the geographical layout in the Amarr/Minmatar warzone. We spent some time discussing the options with players from both factions a few months ago, but we had announced anything because we were not sure if we could fit it into our plan for the release.

While doing some triaging of the FW work to fit as much as possible into Retribution we realized that getting these geography changes in would have a good benefit to time ratio so we're putting it into the plan.

Our plan for the moment is to add three new jump gates to the warzone:

  • Kurniainen (Bleak Lands) to Isbrabata (Metropolis)
  • Siseide (Heimatar) to Eszur (Metropolis)
  • Gulmorogod (Heimatar) to Egmar (Metropolis)

Let us know what you think!


While you are at it make rancer have 0 jump gates ok?

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#556 - 2012-11-08 14:35:55 UTC
Heres the dotlan maps of the warzone for people who want to look:

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Amarr_VS_Minmatar

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

Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
#557 - 2012-11-08 14:49:22 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#558 - 2012-11-08 15:19:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. I've got another FW update to our plan.

We've been getting a lot of feedback about problems with the geographical layout in the Amarr/Minmatar warzone. We spent some time discussing the options with players from both factions a few months ago, but we had not announced anything because we were not sure if we could fit it into our plan for the release.

While doing some triaging of the FW work to fit as much as possible into Retribution we realized that getting these geography changes in would have a good benefit to time ratio so we're putting it into the plan.

Our plan for the moment is to add three new jump gates to the warzone:

  • Kurniainen (Bleak Lands) to Isbrabata (Metropolis)
  • Siseide (Heimatar) to Eszur (Metropolis)
  • Gulmorogod (Heimatar) to Egmar (Metropolis)

Let us know what you think!

:Edit: Cearain and Jason below had the excellent idea of posting the link to Dotlan's map of the warzone. I really should have included that with the post so I'm going to shamelessly steal the idea from them just in case people don't read down two posts.


Awesome work, thanks for jumping on this Fozzie when the opportunity came up. This should make things a lot more interesting in our area, I'm looking forward to it!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#559 - 2012-11-08 15:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
So instead of having a bottleneck in Hofjaldgund, we'll have a bottleneck in Eszur?

Why not a Siseide <-> Frerstorn (or Gebuladi) gate instead?

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#560 - 2012-11-08 15:46:11 UTC
Simplistic, beautiful, and profound in its ramifications. Good work Hans. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the morning.