Warfare & Tactics

Part of the major Issue I've seen in FW playing it for the past four years is that there are no permanent consequences to winning or losing the war; it's an endless cycle whose only point is profit and destruction (and fun). What I would propose to fix this would be a promise from CCP for several things to occur once one side has achieved complete warzone domination:

1. A large lore event happens. We kind of saw this last year when the gallente achieved WZ domination and knocked out the caldari blockade (LIBERATION FLEET!) away from Caldari Prime and killed the Shiigeru. Major lore events are fairly easy to pull off as long as there's some time to set it up beforehand, so they can have pre-planned events and possible story interactions should one side steamroll the other and cap all the systems.

2. Flip a hisec constellation. The idea would basically be a 'border' constellation between the two empire would flip permanent control from one nation to the other. They would also change the type of stations there as well (previous ones get destroyed by the navy) permantly altering the landscape. The idea would be if they keep making the right major territorial gains with WZ domination, they could eventually reach the home system of the enemy race and force a resolution where the war actually is declared won by a single side, so there's a possibility for permanent victory.

3. Remove the ihub bash system. System upgrading is a *completely* irrelevant and unrelated concept to how actual warfare works. It doesn't involve capturing territory or assets, and should never have had any bearing on the warzone CONTROL, which should in fact be based off of SYSTEM control. Having the old system of having the last plex be the thing that flips the system would be ideal, but fixing the plexes by adding a bit more in the way of tougher NPCs so it's either very difficult to run solo, or you have to have a gang with you to discourage farming..
This would paradoxically make it easier to take and to defend systems. Systems that do not have a vested player defense could be captured without much difficulty as long as there's a group of people who work on attackingit, and likewise the system that gets hit by a dedicated group can flip fairly easily since instead of being "vulnerable" it just flips.

4. Shiny medals are nice and everything, but in addition to getting a shiny medal, the faction that gains total warzone control would get some nice redeemable items; a few nice random mods from the LP store would be a good start.

EDIT: instead of the initial "march to the capital" idea I posted wherein there would be issues raised like station types flipping to hostile empires that wouldn't be ideal (cal navy station in potential gal space, ick), I'm going to recommend that be changed in favor of this lowsec to hisec idea that was posted:


"LOW-SEC SYSTEMS SECURITY:

Amarr own or have owned systems two jumps out from Hek and three jumps out from Rens. The slave owners are at the gates. Why would the stability of the Minmatar faction not waver? Similarly, why would the Amarr empire not shudder when the fortunes of war are reversed? The security status of low and high sec systems (.1 - 1.0) should be affected by:

Vicinity of enemy controlled systems.
Hardened status of enemy controlled systems. (upgrade level)
Tier level of militia overall.

Vs.

The same of your own militia.

Let systems transfer from high to low depending on the ebb of the war. If Amarr are winning - imagine Hror or Osoggur becoming Low-Sec. Low-sec systems could also become high sec. (Hilarity would ensue if Minmatar, kicking ass, transformed Amamake to .5 status.) "

Your premise that this is broken is incorrect. The second there were permanent consequences to FW, one side would win and the other side would quit. Then FW would be dead. The whole point of FW is it is a never ending war neither side can ever win. If you don't like that model, move to Null sec. FW is not "Nullsec light", it is something different.

The 'smug' factor is probably the best lasting consequence.


But to answer your proposal:

1) I prefer player-generated content, but YMMV

2) Has already been suggested I think, it sounds cool but it's hard to devise a functional mechanic.

What if, say, Gallente captured all of the warzone so a Caldari highsec system flips.

Then the squids take just one or two systems back, but GalMil re-conquers them in a couple of days. So another Caldari highsec system flips.

So GSF is bored and notices yet another abuse opportunity! So they alternatively assist Calmil & Galmil in abusing the system in order to flip Jita in a couple of weeks, just for the lulz.

3) iHub bashes often lead to decent fights with bigger stuff than cruisers, including fun 3-ways with pirates. Why remove them?

4) This I like, but only if the prize were a Special Edition 'Total Victory' Atron for every militia member (same stats as vanilla Atron - you can't improve the best)

Bad Messenger has this response copyrighted. FYI.

Edit: May as well repost this:

I like plexes. You can pick your battle and get almost instant PvP in low sec. I really don't have an issue making LP off of them. Any 'sov' mechanic by it's nature will have some dullness to it and the LP helps soften that. Here's a confessions though - no matter what tier my militia is at I generally will only make 1-2 billion isk a month. A higher tier means that I essentially plex less. I'm in this for the pew and bragging rights.

What plexing is for me is a simple man's ship reimbursement program. I think this is common for anyone that regards themselves as 'true' militia. System ownership should in and of itself have it's own rewards. Tying the entirety of the rewards to the mechanical process of taking systems has created the farmer class and no amount of ideas regarding timer resets, dual timers, or harder NPC's will really do away with them. Similarly, waving hands in the air like we just don't care and yelling, "Sandbox!" is ignorant. This is not the best of all possible worlds by any means. Let me throw some ideas on page 6+ of this thread and hope they get read.

LOW-SEC SYSTEMS SECURITY:

Amarr own or have owned systems two jumps out from Hek and three jumps out from Rens. The slave owners are at the gates. Why would the stability of the Minmatar faction not waver? Similarly, why would the Amarr empire not shudder when the fortunes of war are reversed? The security status of low and high sec systems (.1 - 1.0) should be affected by:

Vicinity of enemy controlled systems.
Hardened status of enemy controlled systems. (upgrade level)
Tier level of militia overall.

Vs.

The same of your own militia.

Let systems transfer from high to low depending on the ebb of the war. If Amarr are winning - imagine Hror or Osoggur becoming Low-Sec. Low-sec systems could also become high sec. (Hilarity would ensue if Minmatar, kicking ass, transformed Amamake to .5 status.)

SYSTEM UPGRADE REWARDS:

In addition to the above some extra perks would be nice. Free repairs. Reduced POS fuel needs (for friendly militia.) Maybe some moons or PI perks. Let's face it - you're not going to see miners or belt runners in large numbers in low. But the current upgrades are dumb.

DOCKING RIGHTS:

I'm in Amarr militia. 24th Crusade and the Amarr Empire are my factions. If your ass shoots at me, you shoot take a hit in standing to those factions. After a certain level of animosity, you can't dock in our systems. This is a sandbox - you can do what you want. So can we if you give us the tools.

Finally - plexing and kill LP. Make it a constant tier two for everyone. The ideas above are what I would really like to see for motivation. I hope I'm not alone. But basing your whole system around a sov mechanic is a recipe for burn-out and silly threads on farming.

Addressing responses and misconceptions that I have seen on this thread:

1. To clarify, it is CONSTELLATIONS in hisec that get flipped, not individual systems. The intent is that there are X number of constellations that must be captured through capturing or holding warzone control for a specific length of time (holding territory long enough for the parent empire's navy to roll in and take territory). The idea would be akin to "march to the capital" system where each side eventually wants to capture the enemy's homeworld to force capitulation in some form. This by itself would take a LONG time, but would provide a realistic goal in which to end the war. Also, the comparison with nullsec is kind of ludicrous since the two are utterly dissimilar and have completely different mechanics, standards, tactics, and people who play it. It is brutal, delightful and flexible small-gang warfare at its finest.

2. In regards to advocating older systems of gameplay over current paradigms I am also implying that they be tweaked to accommodate the changes I am speaking of. Specifically, making the capturing of complexes more of a group effort. The system is fine as it is? The tag market has dried up, farmers run rampant from gameplay that has been dumbed down to allow easier access, and thus the mechanic as a whole has been soured by a massive group of farmers that shift from one side over to the other depending on warzone control. The pvp is fun, the fleets are fun, but the idea of this being a war is hilarious and deluded. It is a buffet for pvp junkies and farmers, both who get their kicks from the good money and the good fights they get. Sure, like anything else in this game there's the opportunity for comraderie and forming relationships, but all that takes a backseat to the simple fact that this profession in the game is utterly BROKEN on a foundational level, regardless of how accepting we've come to be of its flaws, and being thankful that it's not worse.

3. Adding a real possibility of WINNING the war gives the groups that actually care about it more clear objectives, and dare I say it since it is normally a mirage in this game...hope. Hope that a large, epic conflict played out over the course of years, with thousands of hours and dollars played and payed were not spent for nothing, that in the end all the effort you've put in isn't transient and worthless, that what you can do and accomplish actually MATTERS in the end, which it currently does not. The tides of war have washed in and out so many different times I have lost count. There is nothing worthwhile in the end except the gratification of a good kill, a good fleet, and the depression of losing a fight, or being slaughtered in a bad fleet.
There are no long term goals to accomplish that affect the gameplay in the end, there are no permanent gains, no chance for peace or consideration of victory or defeat. Aside from the joy derived from the gameplay, it is meaningless in the most glaring ways imaginable.

All I am proposing is a way to make a part of this game I love dearly meaningful. If you are genuinely interested in providing constructive feedback, or have legitimate arguments to make to pick apart my ideas, you are welcome. If you are here to play partisan and laugh at the little caldari pilot who thinks they have an idea about how the game should work after playing constantly, both in and out of FW for 4 years, and that things are fine and that I'm an idiot for suggesting otherwise, you can **** off and go heckle somebody who thinks rifters should fit battleship sized lasers or something. Don't waste my time.

I genuinely want to find a solution to this problem. I actually want this to be changed to provide better gameplay, and I believe it has the potential to become something wonderful, or at the very least improve. While we currently get little in the way of representation in the CSM, that's something that can change in the future, and there are plenty of good ideas out there.

Whether or not the ones I've listed are good or not are determined by logical and civil discourse, not witticisms or cynical quips. Give me facts I can work with and I'll not only listen, I'll probably agree with you. Don't waste my time with saying I'm wrong for trying.

Yes, because it's a clear example of the devs giving into Gallente hedonism and debauchery. :)

Fine?
-How is the point system fine?
-How is having hundreds, if not thousands of farmers with no loyalty to any side or the gameplay itself mucking up the system fine?
-How are missions that pay out well, but don't affect the contested level of the system you run them in fine?
-How are dust players not being able to choose the planet they fight on fine?
-How is the tag market fine?
-How is the ihub system fine?
-How is the intel system fine?
-How is the screening for recruits fine?
-How is the plex capturing system fine?
-How are the larger war objectives, if any, fine?
-How is the lore progression fine?
-How are real territory gains fine, especially if they're nonexistent?

What is a war without conquest? What is war without the need for acquiring resources or territory?

Don't tell me something so hilariously broken is fine.
Don't presume gameplay that lets people boost from halfway across a solar system into a complex to buff small gang/solo in complexes designed to limit ship classes and their pvp engagement styles is fine.
Don't think that it's for making money, because it's not. It's for fighting.

And a fight has to eventually have a winner and a loser.

Than we wouldn't be fighting for the State and that'd defeat the whole purpose. She's looking for ways to make FW more of an interest to the advanced, experienced players of EVE. Considering the effort they put into making the lore fit nicely to FW, which I greatly appreciate (there have been 2 novels published regarding the events surrounding Faction Warfare), it does make a certain amount sense for the devs to give it some real grounding and purpose.

The frontier, nullsec, is for those whom want to forge their own empires and not expand the domain or influence of their parent faction.

Catherine, many people are perfectly happy with 'just' those positive points that you mentioned yourself.

They actually prefer neverending pvp and feel 'end goals' are either unnecessary or, worse, detrimental to the pvp fun.


It doesn't mean you're wrong to have a different opinion, and several players may agree with you, but I'd bet the majority wouldn't.


Regarding farmers, many simple mechanic changes have already been suggested, CCP surely is aware of them and pretty much all lowsec CSM9 candidates seem to be willing to vouch for them again. But while farmers are definetly bad for FW, only CCP knows (hopefully) if they're bad for EVE's economy as a whole (ISK sink, ISK flowing from the 'rich' to the 'poor' so maybe some 'rich highsec pve-er with faction mods' is funding some 'poor lowsec pvp-er with a FW farming alt' who in turn generates more content than the ISK-stockpiling carebear, etc.).

Confirming I signed up for FW and got red vs blue in low sec.