Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It doesn't take much reading to see that there are some areas of the game needing a balance between risk vs reward.

Many players see all the NPC mining, manufacturing, and mission running as a way of making risk free isk. With mining and manufacturing being the biggest. Some have taken upon themselves to give risk where there would otherwise not be any. Ganking.

This opened up a new risk vs reward imbalance. This has much to do with defining what a "reward" is which can be different things to different people. Depending on the kind reward that is sought by gankers, they too can benefit from a low risk, high reward environment.

Then there are war dec mechanics and flaws there-in that allow war decs to be avoided. Not just by those who want to do the first mentioned activities but by the gankers as well.

The fix isn't as simple as "nerf this" or "buff that" and yet it doesn't need to be overly complex either. However, it will take making some changes that will take time.

Basically each flaw must be addressed individually without causing an adverse affect on any of the other flaws.

I believe the use of War is the key to adjust the risk.

So to start with the new player joining the game for the first time. The tutorial should take place within the one system. If, at anytime, the player decides to leave system, they are given a waring stating that they are leaving the starter system and assume all risks. By leaving, they are placed in their faction's FW as a start.

The only way not to be part of FW is by being part of a player corp.

So this new player moves out of the starter system. The systems where they will find L1 missions will be higher security systems well within their faction's territory. The reward is small (L1 to L2 mission rewards don't pay much) while the risk is appropriately small (not too many enemy faction pilots would infiltrate this far. More to follow on this).

As well as belts in these high security systems wouldn't be anything special either. Mostly veldspar and with low quantities.

As they work their way up through the mission levels, these higher level agents will be closer to the boundaries of their faction's territories. The likelihood of having enemy faction pilots in system should increase as you get closer to the boundaries. A higher reward but it comes with a greater risk.

OK, so this is the "more to follow" part. The risk to the infiltrating pilot increases the deeper they go into enemy territory. Navy response time increases, navy ship strength/numbers increase, etc. If need be, gate for systems of .8 and up could have webs and disruptors guarding them. This gives CCP a tool to work with that will adjust the risk for both sides at the same time. If it's too easy for the enemy to infiltrate deep and kill easy targets, then the enemy has too little a risk for their reward while the newer players have too much risk for their reward. So by adjusting this one tool, CCP can simultaneously adjust the risk for both. By increasing the risk for the enemy, you automatically decrease the risk for the newer players. Eventually, with some tweaking over time, find a balance that works.

I believe that this would achieve a Risk vs Reward balance for NPC corp players.

Now for player corps.

Well, the risk is that player corps can be war dec'ed and unlike the FW, the Navy and gate defenses don't care about a player corp that is after another player corp. That's a pretty decent risk. The reward is that the player corp can operate anywhere, can setup POS and have the benefits they bring. No tax or at least tax that can benefit the corp and its members.

The only thing left is war dodging. What about when a corp disbands and reforms to get out of a player war? This forces the aggressor to have to pay and war dec over and over for a war that will never happen. How do you get rid of this dodging tactic but still allow CEOs the right to kick members who may be trouble? How do you get rid of this dodging tactic but still allow players the right to leave the corp they're in?

Well, there are two ways that I see.

1. The players can drop corp but they have to wait one week before they can be in a player corp again. This means they have to be in FW for one week. Since it's possible for corps to be part of FW, then the aggressing corp can still go after the dodging players simply by enlisting their corp into FW. After one week, the dodging players can then form a new corp for which the aggressing corp will have to war dec the new corp. The aggressing corp gets the war they paid for, even if it's not in a conventional way. Not a perfect solution but it may be an easier one than the second.

2. If any player drops corp while the corp has a war dec against them, that player is still a war target for the week. So even if the war dec is still in the 24 hours to begin phase, and a player drops from the corp being war dec'ed, after 24 hours that player still ends up as a war target to the aggressing corp for one week. This plus the automatic FW should keep war dodgers from dodging because the dodger now has FW enemies, plus they still have the player corp WT that don't have to worry about any faction's navy (unless the aggressing corp is in FW).

That should fix many of the issues. Gradually get new players accustomed to playing the game with the existence of war targets they could come into system at any time. Trying to AFK mine is even more suicidal. Gives players an incentive to form player corps. Makes it impossible to dodge war decs.

Just a side note on the default FW. Which FW you default to depends on which territory you are in when you drop from player corp. This is so you don't drop corp in the middle of enemy territory.

I think I understand what they were going for, and it makes some sense. New players, without friends to pick them up on the spot, are encouraged to start in 1.0/0.9 space for a low risk/low reward, while anyone willing to go farther out for the higher risk also accepts the higher risk of roaming FW pilots who might drop on them. For the roaming pilots, the deeper they penetrate the more potentially juicy the targets they can catch, so it makes sense that the default is for FW corps. This allows content in High Sec, exposes new players to PvP in a manageable and gradual way that is much less intimidating, and might breathe new life into the FW system.

As for the corp dropping, I would much rather go with a variant of their 2nd option than the first since that week of waiting is quickly going to get very, very tiresome. What if the corp declaring the war has the option of, for additional cost, individually war decc'ing members who drop corp before a war has ended?

As for Null or J-space, it could be that you are automatically enrolled in the FW of the last Empire whose space you were in, the next Empire whose space you enter, or a default that places you in the FW of your pilot. I would prefer the 3rd option, a Caldari pilot who trained Caldari would be enrolled in Caldari FW the same as a Caldari pilot who skipped over to train Amarr after a week.

Overall.... I give it a +3/4

Yay, more grieving. So wonderful. And the death to 1-man corps, which are essential to keep your belongings safe-ish from corp thieves and other adversities. Just wonderful.

So, how does this make the life in Low sec and 00 sec better, more worthwhile and rewarding? How does this improve the game in the areas of space which are currently underused and lack incentives or reasons to stay there? How does this keep people interested in Low sec and 00 sec beyond ratting and blob?

We disagree on a fair balance of risk/ reward.

Under your system I have to risk several days worth of effort in the form of mission fit battleships and/or mining barges to do anything at all, while those that want to kill easy targets risk ships a fraction of the cost with very little chance of losing.

If you want that kind of play, go hunt in low sec. That's what it's for. Making high sec suck just as bad for bears as low just kills the game.

I don't even know where you're getting on with this...

This would be devastating for new players, they would be confused out of their minds with this puzzle of randomness.

another "I like XXX playstile so everybody else HAS to play like I want" thread.
-1

You know op it really says a lot about FW when you...and people before you... keep on wanting to draft people into it.


FW is so great....we makee the devs force you into it.


Catchy phrase, just sells FW so well too.


YOU want volunteers genius, not people forced into it. Volunteers tend to like like what they do and give 2 craps about it while doing it.

First FW whines about people in it only to farm, not "RP" enough, warp stabbed frigates, etc. Then we get people like you who apparently want to see more of it.

Before I reply I just want to say that the point of the suggestion was to change hi-sec. It was to address two current issues.

1. People can earn more isk in an NPC corp in hi-sec, then they can in some of the more riskier parts of the game. In an NPC corp, as an indy player, the risk is ganking. Indy in a player corp makes you vulnerable to war decs and you can still be ganked. The perks of being in a player corp (POCOs, POS) don't offer enough of an increase in benefit vs the increase in risk. So rather than nerf/buff the reward part (which has been done repeatedly before with little effect), I propose adjusting the risk part. I went with war and war targets as that risk because EVE is a PvP game.

2. War decs. Corp A can war dec corp B. While the 24 hour grace period is still in affect, the corp being dec'ed can disband and reform. Completely dodging the war. The aggressing corp then has to pay again to war dec the same group of players? Now I've seen someone talk about it being a defense against war decs. No, this is wrong. If wars were meant to be a mutual thing, then the crop being dec'ed would get a notification stating saying that "Corp A wants to declare war on you, do you accept". This is not how it currently works. Instead, Corp A can simply pay the fee and the war dec goes live in 24 hours regardless if Corp B likes it or not. Now there is no option for Corp B to pay a fee to have the war dec canceled. This, again, tells me that once the war dec is made, it's suppose to go through uninterrupted. All defending corps have done is found a loop hole within the games design and exploited it.

So to address this first point.

It wouldn't segratate all that much. As it is now, the FW systems are in pockets. There are ways to go between territories without going through low sec. Keep in mind that only those who are in NPC corp are in FW. You get out of FW by being in a player corp. This means you can trade and transport goods between factions with no issues from FW. Also keep in mind that it's Amarr/Caldari vs Gallente/Minmitar. So you can still be in NPC corp and trade between your current and allied faction.



The option to pay to cancel a war dec against you isn't that bad of an idea. Again it's risk vs reward. You remove the risk but this comes at a cost. The reward of joining a player corp is that you can make more isk but it comes with the added risk of being war dec'ed. You pay to remove the risk but this means a portion of your reward is being spent and thus, reward goes down with the risk.



Yeah, pretty much.



While I believe that a change like this would certainly reduce ganking (by fixing the reason why many gank in the first place), it certainly wouldn't eliminate it. After all, by being in a player corp, you are not part of the FW. This means that if you are in Amarr NPC corp (so part of the FW) and there is a player corp operating in Amarr space, well, there's nothing stopping you from ganking those in the corp. Hell, if you are in the Amarr NPC corp and there is another player in the Amarr NPC corp (so you both are in FW) and that other player is doing whatever (mining) you can still gank them. Nothing is stopping you there. However, this will cause CONCORD to step in as per normal. The reason I believe this would reduce ganking is because I believe that much ganking is to give hi-sec (specifically NPC hi-sec) the risk it needs to compensate the reward it offers. What you would have instead are the "gankers" now being FW war targets trying to infiltrate into enemy territory. However, unlike with CONCORD now that only responds after the act, the enemy's navy will persue the war targets upon entering the system.



Well, it would make sense for a faction to look after those who have been loyal to them.

To make it clear that this is a PvP game and players joining a PvP game with the intent of avoiding and/or not getting involved with and/or crying on the forums about how people are trying to PvP them should rethink their game choice.

Hell, I came here from a locked thread requesting miners have a feature similar to a "911 call" to bring in CONCORD as a way of defending against gankers. I assume it was to bring them in before the gank has a chance to take place.



You picked the wrong game.

Keeping in mind that PvP is not just ship vs ship.

If you want more FW, make it more welcoming. That's you, the player corps. I at one stage sent in messages to a bunch of corps looking to join FW, I got about a 10% response back from them, and only one got even as far as a second message. Not a single corp bothered telling me why they weren't interested in me joining.

So... why should I want to join FW if that is how people behave?

Corps need more carrots, then you won't see corp dodging the same way. Make the Corp leader have to have the skills himself, but make the skills give benefits to the corp (Rather than corp size limitations, 1 skill should do that if there is a skill for corp size). And you won't see 1 man alt corps sitting around either. Carrots are the way, there is enough stick already.