These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare: Moving Forward.....

First post First post
Author
S810 Jr
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#261 - 2011-10-24 08:39:45 UTC
If CCP really want to remove Navy from high sec then how about only removing them from systems that have a Sansha incursion happening in them. Navy is too busy with Sansha to do anything with Militia pilots if they have to RP it. That would allow Militias to do *yawn* high sec gate camps in set places and maybe get a response fleet to counter. But only as long as the incursion lasted.

Removing Navy from all high sec just sounds dumb from a RP point of view, you'd pull navy back to high sec from low sec and give the Militias the job of doing everything in low sec.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
Dead Terrorists
#262 - 2011-10-24 08:49:31 UTC
Remove npc's from high sec, remove docking from stations belonging to factions you are at war with.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD REMOVE ECM FROM CALDARI NPC'SEvil

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

Silence iKillYouu
Girls Lie But Zkill Doesn't
Pandemic Legion
#263 - 2011-10-24 09:23:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Silence iKillYouu
Keep in Simple

Give us something to fight for
A reason to own systems!

EVE Mail me i dont check forums often.

Bengal Bob
Slymsloot Enterprises
#264 - 2011-10-24 09:44:37 UTC
I guess I called it early, silence from Devs indicates FW "refresh" is removal of npc navies from high sec.

Lol.

Please can someone from CCP that still plays eve try FW and see for themselves - I am talking about the pvp/plexing, not just going "Awesome missions, FW is WIN"

PS: Yesterday was loads of fun Amarr, please keep it coming
subtle turtle
Doozer Mining Cartel
#265 - 2011-10-25 01:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: subtle turtle
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey guys

Great feedback in this thread. I'm taking a few notes and getting a few ideas.

One thing we might be able to do very easily is remove the faction NPCs, letting you freely travel in other factions space. How would you guys feel about that change? I've always found it a bit sad that we've isolated FW in low-sec when it could be done on a much larger scale.


Hmmmm.. Never thought about that, TBH. My issue is is if this would end up killing low-sec pretty much for good, as there would be no reason to fight there and risk pirate intervention, capital ships, etc....
One idea I had relating to this is that in high sec, NPC standing could really matter related to FW. For example, I am in Amarr Militia. If you remove the NPC intervention, you could make it so if I go into a high sec system with a station owned by a Minimatar loyal corp (Boundless Creations, for example), I would automatically be KOS for any non-FW player in that system with a standing of higher than some set amount (5.0 or so) to that corp. There would no longer be the NPC threat, but there would be an added player threat. There would be a local flag, similar to when a pilot is GCC or a wartarget to signal that I was a valid target. Of course, as soon as a non-FW player would agress the FW interloper, they would become a valid target for return fire. This would provide new PVP opportunity for all players, not just FW members, including a easy introduction to PVP for the high sec missioner. It would also open new and interesting PVP mechanics, like HS gate camps to catch potential interlopers, missioner baiting as FW members could scan out active missioners and bait them into agressing the flashy red ship that just warped into their mission. It would ad an element of surprise and danger, as NPC corp standings aren't readily available, so you wouldn't know if that ship next to you was able to shoot you until the bullets start flying. This also wouldn't minimize low sec, because the mechanics there favor the knowledgeable FW pilot more than the new, risky mechanics of enemy high sec. It would also address the "NPCs shouldn't fight battles between players" issue in a sandbox game like Eve.
The real advantage of this is that it would make the ongoing struggle between the 4 factions a MUCH larger part of gameplay for all players in Empire, high or low. It would matter to missioners who they grind for, as that could influence PVP opportunity.
Lord Meriak
State Naval Academy
#266 - 2011-10-25 08:49:17 UTC
With useing the incursion system.

Would this work say amarr system 100% to armour as the system became more contested this would lower and become more shield based.

these effects would effect say speed shield armour.

many differant ships needed all way threw make for a changing battlefield.

any more ideas on this.

I know some peeps only fly vega darkes etc but a good way to push out differant ships.
Wendi Wu
Curiously Incompetent
The Glory Holers
#267 - 2011-10-25 13:05:31 UTC
I don't think removing NPC navies is a good idea for three reasons:

• It makes absolutely no sense. It's bad enough that the NPCs let war targets dock in their stations, now they can't even be bothered to patrol their own supposedly-high-security space?
• Every griefer, camper and noob-targeter in FW will immediately make a beeline for the opposing side's market hub (Amarr, Jita, Dodixie, Rens) and station camp it 23/7.
• FW is brutal enough for newbies already. They need some kind of safe harbour.

Instead i'll repost Hans' very sensible list of suggestions that virtually everyone in FW wants:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
1.) Add rewards to plexing. Make it a desireable activity, with a distinct PvP focus and less NPC shooting and button orbiting.
2.) Fix the spawning of plexes to not only occur at downtime. Make them spawn more often, and round the clock.
3.) Remove pirate ships from any othe plexes that restrict tech 2 ships.
4.) Make docking at an enemy station hazardous to your health - either deny access completely, or if that is too extreme/imbalanced at very least cause gate guns to fire if your enemy has Sov.
5.) Fix GCC/standing for repping friendly militia members. Most of us who PvP to shoot neutrals from time to time, whenever there is "suspected enemy collaboration".
6.) Fix missions so they aren't farmable in bombers.


To which I'd add:

7.) Have friendly militias show up as blue or purple on overview so that we don't get continual friendly fire incidents between Caldari/Amarr and Gallente/Minmatar.
8.) Balance NPCs so that Amarr/Gallente rats are less of a joke compared to Minmatar/Caldari.
9.) Massively increase LP rewards for killing enemy war targets.
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#268 - 2011-10-25 14:12:31 UTC
Rodj Blake wrote:
Or, how about allowing all those with a +5 from faction x to shoot all those with a -5 from the same faction no matter where they are?

That would be true faction warfare.

Regarding stations, yes, I agree that if you're hated by a faction then you shouldn't be allowed to dock at their stations. But maybe there could be some benefit for high faction standings as well - maybe free repairs or lower sales taxes if you're in a friendly station.


This would give faction standing some meaning after taking away the navies (great idea as I've stated before). It would also give another advantage to having good standing. Be allowed to shoot those with extremely bad standing Pirate
The docking thing, logical as it seems, breaks too much. If I'm flying for gallente/minmatar I can't dock at caldari stations? Comes back to the same problem as the current navies: I can not go to Jita without using an alt. The whole point of removing the navies would be to to allow for free movement, right? But this doesn't have to apply to low-sec (especially FW areas), after all that is an entirely different kind of region...

About the removal of the faction navies, I'm against anything that treats Hubs any different from other systems. Those currently have no special treatment in-game, they just happen to be used as hubs by player (and could at least in theory shift to different systems at any time). It should stay that way. If caldari FW members start camping Dodixie I'm sure the Gallente guys can muster up some kind of defense on their home turf? Would be pretty sad if they couldn't....

I'd also love to be able to join FW on a more or less day-by day basis without leaving my corp (because that is just not gonna happen). Eve is about diverse possibilities and not being limited in what you want to do. At least for me it is. If I'm in the mood for some pewpew I can join and do so (including hopefully revamped missions for the militia involving some sort of player-interaction) for a day or two. I'd say some commitment should be required, if I kill someone he probably wants so kill me right back. He should have that opportunity.
How about this, anyone can join FW as an individual without leaving his corp, but has to commit for at least 48 hours. He can cancel his "membership" at any time, but it takes 24 hours to be actually out (respecting the initial 48 of course). Also, this should be extended for any aggressive action. If he shoots a FW-Target during that time (i.e. engages in FW), the 24 hours reset. Only if he is the aggressor though, not it he gets shot and just shoots back. This should also extend to supporting other FW members in a logical way (cap/shield/armor transfer, tracking link, ...).

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Removing the stock NPC corp in favor of more of a pseudo- static alliance is a much better way around this, in my opinion - I think forcing players to join a player corp to do Faction Warfare is a great idea. Players corps are much better about monitoring and filtering farmers and spies - the players who sign up for 24th crusade or TLF usually have a crap experience if they stay there - they are simply treated as riffraff anyways by any militia pilot who has been around longer than a few weeks.

I think that is a bad idea, it fixes a symptom and not the problem itself. And it has a downside: rather new or just hesitant players might try FW via the NPC corps, getting fresh blood into FW is obviously one of the main objectives of any fixes! The NPC corp can be (and I would expect it to already be) a stepping stone for joining an FW player corp.
FW itself needs to be fixed in such a way that it can't be farmed without player-interaction/PVP (sure a mission objective can be achieved without PVP, but it should be the exception and not the norm). I agree that player corps are of course better for FW members in general and I do see the point of spotting spies. Also what's stopping them from creating corps to join FW just to spy? It might make things somewhat better, but it won't really fix anything.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#269 - 2011-10-25 15:23:03 UTC
Creat Posudol wrote:

I'd also love to be able to join FW on a more or less day-by day basis without leaving my corp (because that is just not gonna happen). Eve is about diverse possibilities and not being limited in what you want to do. At least for me it is. If I'm in the mood for some pewpew I can join and do so (including hopefully revamped missions for the militia involving some sort of player-interaction) for a day or two. I'd say some commitment should be required, if I kill someone he probably wants so kill me right back. He should have that opportunity.


Thanks Posudol, you make many great suggestions.

One of the more interesting points you bring up is that we are talking about militas, not military service. The current FW model shares much more in common with military service, than it does mimic the idea of citizen-soldiers taking up arms.

I think that if we are to have citizens engage in FW, and police higsec themselves (as CCP Soundwave suggested) than we simply must implement a mechanic where a broader range of people can engage in militia work without having to permanently enlist in the service of one faction or another.

Standings are the way to do this - your every day mission runner grinding Brutor level 4's is no doubt going to have low Amarr standing, I think its as simply as allowing highsec players to attack each other once you've pushed your standings down far enough. Someone who has been grinding missions for a minnie corp and nuking their amarr standings, should be attackable (like criminals are currently) once they tread into opposing space.

This would create faction warfare outside of lowsec, in a way that is consistent with RP and dovetails the already-in-place system of criminals being targetable by players once they tread into highsec. Also, it helps offset the trade hub camp issue - if I personally were to go to Jita, it means that instead of NPC's harassing me, I'd have every player in system that had high caldari standing on my ass - not just the ones that had signed up for full military service by belonging to a FW corp.

This people-not-in-FW-engaging-in-FW could be supplemented by reinforcing the static wardec scenario we currently enjoy, and eliminate a few of the frustrations - by allowing factions to set factions to blue, we can eliminate a huge amount of cooperative fleet headaches that currently serve as barriers to amarr-caldari cooperation and minni-gallente collaboration. Also, by fixing the GCC for repping militia members problem, we can allow the current FW pilots to engage in pew pew much more often, self-policing the lowsec areas and having more freedom to engage neutral targets (but only when they are suspected enemy collaborators, of course! Blink )

I think all of this may have been what Soundwave was on to with his comments, but maybe he can clarify....everyone's speculating like crazy in the meantime. The question is - Soundwave, do you have the balls to tell the highsec mission runner base they can expect a slew of new, non-voluntary pew pew? Everyone is still crying over the goons and their ice war - I can see removing highsec NPC's and allowing highsec FW as sparking the very same backlash.

Without involving standings and utilizing the general citizens of highsec to engage intruders, the simply removal of NPC's would indeed lead to hub gatecamp station games. And this would discourage anyone from joining FW, if they saw the crap at the stations and decided they wanted nothing to do with that business.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#270 - 2011-10-25 16:22:05 UTC
Moving this over to the desired thread as per Spitfire's request.

Completely agreeing with Hans on this, who oddly enough has been a pretty clear voice for the FW community (despite the low numbers post on here). He is doing a great job at voicing well thought out opinions.

As for Wendi's last post, I just want to widdle this down to once again things that are doable and everyone can agree upon

1. Distribute plex spawn throughout the day. This should be easy to fix. I cannot see how using an existing mechanic to replace the current one should take any significant amount of resources. Everyone EVERYONE wants this (except maybe sasawong har har har)

2. Re-balance NPC's. Both missions and plexes. Once again, easy fix. Hell, give everyone missiles, it sure is one hell of a frig deterrent on the Gal/amarr side of things.

3. Pirate ships counting as T2 frigs as far as plexes go. Cmon, Pirate frigs are at the very least on par with T2, they shouldn't be in the minor plexes. On the same hand (which hasn't been emphasized), Pirate cruisers should also be restricted to majors for the same comparison with HAC's.

On a deadline, these should be EASY to accomplish. Although there are six things, maybe some of the others are too far reaching for the upcoming expansion (including meaningful sov, redistribution of LP rewards, and changing the act of plexing). Yes, we want these looked at, but personally I would rather see these get waited on and get some hotfixes on the above three problems.

As far as friendly cal/amarr and gal/matar, I stand by my analysis that people are going to regret this and noobies are going to be extremely frustrated. The reason you don't shoot your own militia is because of the standing hit, which doesn't and shouldn't exist cross militia.

Just to reiterate: PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CCP FIX THESE THREE PROBLEMS THAT ARE PISSING OFF EVERYONE.

I has all the eve inactivity

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#271 - 2011-10-25 16:49:39 UTC
Karl Planck wrote:
Completely agreeing with Hans on this, who oddly enough has been a pretty clear voice for the FW community (despite the low numbers post on here)


What did you mean about low numbers? Did I miss something? Ugh

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#272 - 2011-10-25 16:54:28 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Karl Planck wrote:
Completely agreeing with Hans on this, who oddly enough has been a pretty clear voice for the FW community (despite the low numbers post on here)


What did you mean about low numbers? Did I miss something? Ugh


i was talking about the variety of people posting in here vs the number of active (pvp) pilots flying around.

I has all the eve inactivity

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#273 - 2011-10-25 16:55:01 UTC
Edit: DAMN YOU GANKED FORUMS

I has all the eve inactivity

Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#274 - 2011-10-25 17:30:07 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Standings are the way to do this - your every day mission runner grinding Brutor level 4's is no doubt going to have low Amarr standing, I think its as simply as allowing highsec players to attack each other once you've pushed your standings down far enough. Someone who has been grinding missions for a minnie corp and nuking their amarr standings, should be attackable (like criminals are currently) once they tread into opposing space.

This would create faction warfare outside of lowsec, in a way that is consistent with RP and dovetails the already-in-place system of criminals being targetable by players once they tread into highsec. Also, it helps offset the trade hub camp issue - if I personally were to go to Jita, it means that instead of NPC's harassing me, I'd have every player in system that had high caldari standing on my ass - not just the ones that had signed up for full military service by belonging to a FW corp.


Well, all mission runners I know don't accept missions against another factions, so it might not be as bad as you think. But yes, most likely many L4 runners will have somewhat bad standing with the opposing faction.
While I (obviously) like all that it still has the significant galente/minmatar vs. amarr/caldari disadvantage that Jita happens to be Caldari. This for me is really just as critical unfortunately. I need to and want to go there on occasion and I hate using alts for stuff like this, as I think it shouldn't be necessary (also for immersion reasons).
(also see comment at the bottom replying to wendi wu for more reasoning on this)

Maybe it should still be tied in to the FW mechanic, that only members of opposing militias (maybe even only with -5 r worse?) are flagged as valid targets for everyone with +5 or better standing? This would not throw off the whole status quo, but open possibilities for those outside FW with bad standing towards Caldari to go to Jita (or generally to roam freely in high-sec), while stiff providing enough of a deterrent for FW members to enter enemy space. It would allow for a generic/normal PVP fits instead of the runaway-from-faction-navies setups needed otherwise.

Wendi Wu wrote:
I don't think removing NPC navies is a good idea for three reasons:
• It makes absolutely no sense. It's bad enough that the NPCs let war targets dock in their stations, now they can't even be bothered to patrol their own supposedly-high-security space?
[...]

Remember the Factions themselves are not (officially) at war with each other, they just used to be and there is lingering resentment (or something). The fleet war mechanic is meant to be sort of underground movement, only unofficially sponsored somewhat by the empires, which is why it at least started in low-sec... Also they don't need to patrol their own space, it's "subcontracted" if you will to Concord. A neutral police force enforcing law, not shooting all people the local mayor doesn't like (yes, it's a metaphor, deal with it What?). They provide security just fine, as you'll notice if you shoot someone you have no right to shoot, making this high-security.
Tying in to what I wrote in the paragraph above the quote, while concord won't shoot people who fight against a faction in this underground war themselves, it may allow members of that faction (or people in high regard) to shoot them, similar to the way you're allowed to shoot someone who steals from you.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#275 - 2011-10-25 17:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Karl Planck wrote:

i was talking about the variety of people posting in here vs the number of active (pvp) pilots flying around.


Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, I fully expected at some point there'd be jocks at the top of the killboard who would question my right to an opinion :) Despite the silly carebear accusations, I've only ever lived in lowsec and been involved with the FW community full time since I began playing 2 years ago. Lately I primarily fly Logistics, am happy to skip a killmail if its not safe to aggress and whore on it. I rarely solo PvP, and don't really care about being "teh best" For me, the fun is all about teamwork with friends, I think its sad that the only thing FW has to offer at the moment is a giant 3p33n kill race that pits militia corps against each other even within the same faction, and sparks a lot of general asshattery amongst the elite militia pilots. Certainly we can do better than that with fixes that bring back objective-based gameplay.

A lot of the top PvPers are those that only log on to pew, get several hours of killing in a day, and do nothing else in the game. While this is awesome, and demonstrates talent worthy of respect, many of them feel this makes their opinion more valid than others - even though killboards show only one dimension of what each pilot brings to the community.

I'm thinking of corps like Huang Yinlong - whose bravery and pilot skill are top notch, despite low levels of activity.

I encourage everyone that has been involved in the FW scene or who is an active part of a FW corp to speak up and share your mind - whether your killboard has a hundred kills or 10,000. Maybe you just provide Industry support for your militia corp, maybe you spend most of your time doing recruiting, or sorting out intra-corp disputes and keeping everyone happy. Maybe you just have a full-time job and don't have much time to play as others. Maybe you're just starting to accumulate kills in a FW corp, or are still learning to PvP. Whatever the reason, whatever your activity level, if you have a good idea now is the time to speak up.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Spaceship Bebop
#276 - 2011-10-25 19:39:00 UTC
Adding to a good post, and thanks Hans for a great thread.

Karl Planck wrote:


1. Distribute plex spawn throughout the day. This should be easy to fix. I cannot see how using an existing mechanic to replace the current one should take any significant amount of resources. Everyone EVERYONE wants this (except maybe sasawong har har har)

2. Re-balance NPC's. Both missions and plexes. Once again, easy fix. Hell, give everyone missiles, it sure is one hell of a frig deterrent on the Gal/amarr side of things.

3. Pirate ships counting as T2 frigs as far as plexes go. Cmon, Pirate frigs are at the very least on par with T2, they shouldn't be in the minor plexes. On the same hand (which hasn't been emphasized), Pirate cruisers should also be restricted to majors for the same comparison with HAC's.



4. Absolute value heat map instead of relative value heat map, so we have an indication on how contested a system actually is.


Chaniqua TicTic
Doomheim
#277 - 2011-10-25 21:19:37 UTC
I don't advocate a removal of all NPCs, I would however, advocate a removal of Concord guards/patrols and program the individual faction NPCs to fill the role that CONCORD does now (ie: a player attacks another player of good standing in 1.0 Amarr space, an Amarr defense fleet will warp in to defend the player, but if your faction standing is poor enough, the Amarr guards will not warp in to defend the player.) It allows for a little more fluidity and versatility in play style. It also doesn't stomp on the carebears much at all. They just have to know what NPCs like them and stay there.

What I'm advocating is more focused on the rp/rvr side of NPC factions:
Considering some ideas for NPC faction alignment (also includes ideas for Faction Warfare)
Kuan Yida
Huang Yinglong
Electus Matari
#278 - 2011-10-25 23:25:00 UTC
Lots of good stuff here, and lots of ideas I don't agree with. Rather than summarizing and trying to remembers all the main points, I'll just be lazy and re-use what I wrote for Shalee's Sov Wars blog. Essentially, I have 3 main recommendations, all of which should be implementation using existing frameworks of modules within the EvE architecture.

Make killing WTs more rewarding

While killing enemy ships has a sporadic LP reward (which, by the way, should be divided among all combatants and not just top damage dealer) there should also be a bounty placed by our government on enemy pod pilots. Possibly by the rank of the enemy pilot. This would help offset the large cost of losing ships in PvP. Again, the bounty shouldn’t be just to the final blow dealer, but like missions and rats, divided among all participants on the combat grid.

Make plexing more rewarding

Plexing is boring as hell. If we could see how much capturing added or removed to the status of a system (like in Incursions) then we could motivate people to plex more. And, there should be monetary rewards and loyalty points involved, they don’t have to be large but any little bit helps. And maybe our navies don’t have to be quite so dumb? They could be more like Sanshas…

Make captured systems have some real consequence

I’m not sure on the details of this one. Maybe we add local navy ‘rats’ to captured systems? Maybe there is some sort of home field bonus to killing enemies in captured systems (to both sides) in an ISK reward? I’d also have a large monetary boost and LP reward to those pilots who capture a bunker. And I’d make a miltia-wide broadcast to both militias when a system has gone vulnerable. Or, over time if a system is captured the friendly rats get tougher/smarter, or maybe it becomes more and more difficult to reclaim the system?

And I’d create a huge reward in ISK and LP to any militia that actually wins… that is, capturing all systems and holding them over time. Medals, LP and ISK rewards militia wide when this happens, and rewarded again maybe for each day that the militia hangs onto all enemy systems.

The dragon knight treasures the state, friendship, duty, promises, kindness, vengeance, honor, and righteousness more than his own life._ _- The Way of the Dragon Warrior Random Posts from Auga

Covert Kitty
SRS Industries
#279 - 2011-10-25 23:29:31 UTC
Quote:
One thing we might be able to do very easily is remove the faction NPCs, letting you freely travel in other factions space.


Agree completely
Flyinghotpocket
Doomheim
#280 - 2011-10-25 23:59:50 UTC
Covert Kitty wrote:
Quote:
One thing we might be able to do very easily is remove the faction NPCs, letting you freely travel in other factions space.


Agree completely


nah increase NPCs in highsec you should be owned if you go into enemy highsec, and you should be able to take conquer enemy highsec.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro