These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

FW Corp/Home Systems
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ben Ishikela
#21 - 2015-02-11 12:11:32 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
*FW missions*
*Defensive plexing*
*PVP payouts*
*System Upgrades*

What he said!

*LP Savings* Previous stacks of LP earned in previous situations have impact on ISK/LP ratio in the now. A process that decreases the amount of "LP in Wallet" by 0.X % each downtime for every player, would help the ratio to react quicker. So that changes in Tiers or from patches affect player behavior more directly.

*Frontline* If, just if, plexes would only spawn in systems bordering a system belonging to an enemy faction. -->Effects?
Less Plexes => More Fights over plexes => increased difficulty to complete a plex
increased difficulty & No Missions => more ISK/LP => more players (not only farmers i hope)
if missions still exist, a completed mission should contribute to the contestedness like a complex does. (maybe with the option to select an enemysystem on agent's window). To give back players the opportunity to attack behind enemy lines.
Defend your homesystem!, because it will be even harder to take it back, if there is no neighbor.
I hope this promotes Teamplay. If it does not, scrap it ;)

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#22 - 2015-02-11 15:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Thanatos Marathon
If you read the minutes from the CSM there is info in there on why LP tax isn't around. Do I think it would be worth a substantial rewrite of the entire LP system to make it happen? Maybe.

It all comes down to developer hours and what other projects would have to get pushed back to make it happen. However, if they could work it in on the corp changes over the next few releases, it would make many people, including myself, very happy.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM9-WS-D3.txt

"Sugar brought back a topic from the Summer Summit about the ability to tax LP which has been requested by some FW corporations. CCP Fozzie responded that this would not be possible without a rework of LP entirely. The current system is not a monetary system but is a player reward. It would be a substantial rewrite of the entire LP system to make it happen."

With regards to lp payouts for kills, I don't know anyone who is against it within FW, and there is yet more information in the CSM minutes.

"Sugar Kyle brought up a suggestion about looking at the Loyalty Point (LP) payout in FW. The LP needed across the tiers was discussed. One suggestion to improve PvP rewards was pegging the PvP LP payouts at Tier 5. They cannot go higher."

JUSTK is recruiting
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#23 - 2015-02-11 15:53:49 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
Oreb Wing wrote:
*FW missions*
*Defensive plexing*
*PVP payouts*
*System Upgrades*

What he said!

*LP Savings* Previous stacks of LP earned in previous situations have impact on ISK/LP ratio in the now. A process that decreases the amount of "LP in Wallet" by 0.X % each downtime for every player, would help the ratio to react quicker. So that changes in Tiers or from patches affect player behavior more directly.

*Frontline* If, just if, plexes would only spawn in systems bordering a system belonging to an enemy faction. -->Effects?
Less Plexes => More Fights over plexes => increased difficulty to complete a plex
increased difficulty & No Missions => more ISK/LP => more players (not only farmers i hope)
if missions still exist, a completed mission should contribute to the contestedness like a complex does. (maybe with the option to select an enemysystem on agent's window). To give back players the opportunity to attack behind enemy lines.
Defend your homesystem!, because it will be even harder to take it back, if there is no neighbor.
I hope this promotes Teamplay. If it does not, scrap it ;)


Restricting plex spawning to bordering enemy systems could overwhelm some people, as Gallente could, for LoLz, let every system fall with the exception of staging systems just to bring all the pvp to us. This would also hit solo in back water areas, where there are many roamers still. There would be no reason for me to go there, so hunters stop frequenting those areas as well.

Allowing missioners to choose spawn area would not work in some cases to promote aggressive tactics. I think it would actually be taken advantage of and pilots would bear around in non-station or low population systems, were they able to choose.

The maths on the first part went so far over my head that I didn't feel the wind on my baldness.
Enlal Nemeth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2015-02-11 19:13:59 UTC
Me likey +1
Varrinox
Shadows of the Empire
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#25 - 2015-02-12 09:48:10 UTC
Ok, so as often happen with any thread talking about a few changing of mechanics this has opened up a lot of questions and other suggestions. All of which are valid and should be considered. But for the sake of keeping this thread concise and useful, let us focus on 1 topic of discussion.

> Thoughts on allowing FW corps to have some kind of control over a system
> a simple Good idea or Bad idea answer for now.
> If yes, what kind of controls?
> If no, why not?

A good wide ranging discussion is always good but in the format of forums I feel like I should have directed this thread a bit more specifically.

Cheers <3
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2015-02-12 12:48:07 UTC
My thoughts:

It is a good idea in principle.

Instead of 'buying' an I hub have it linked to both system tier and corp LP generation. This means that a system would have to be Tier 4/5 and the militia corp that is most active in defending the system gains control. This would be to stop griefers/farmers/enemy spies from simply undermining the genuine 'occupiers' of the system by pressing the 'buy I hub' button first.

Give a limited mixture of bonuses to turn on/off and a timer for how long they stay active before they can be changed. This would then encourage militia co-operation to specialise home systems for different uses. E.g The Amarr owners of Huola could select bonuses to encourage it becoming a militia trade hub, meanwhile the Amarr owners of Lasleinur want to encourage milita fleets to use their system as a forward base to attack Minmatar systems so choose to ignore trade bonuses and turn on things like repair discounts etc.

Also give 1 or 2 big deal bonuses for the owners. E.g. The ability to turn off/on a cyno jammer and dictate station docking rights based on their corp standings (I.e none blues to DnG could not dock in a DnG home system). This would give the owning corp some real power over anyone looking to use their space. This would also mean that neutrals would have to take real militia forces (the ones who can maintain home systems) seriously.

Not sure about ability to influence Plex mechanics as that could be open to abuse but in willing to listen as to how that can work.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#27 - 2015-02-12 14:37:52 UTC
Varrinox wrote:

> Thoughts on allowing FW corps to have some kind of control over a system
> a simple Good idea or Bad idea answer for now.
> If yes, what kind of controls?
> If no, why not?



No. If I want SOV mechanics on a per system basis I can go to null. Any more advantages for the defender would make taking defended systems near impossible.

JUSTK is recruiting
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#28 - 2015-02-12 18:55:59 UTC
+1 for LP tax. My corp needs funds to purchase a couple Titans that are nearly useless for FW ops. I sincerely believe that "gates are for peasants" and it's high time we stop using them.
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#29 - 2015-02-13 18:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
I would love to see a limit of one corp office per station for alliance. This may seem grueling,but it would force expansion and indirectly create more' home' systems, while avoiding murder nests.

A manipulated/player controlled system-wide cyno inhibitor is to OP. One that comes on automatically at tier V would/could create some interesting dynamics and encourage caps to peasant travel.

LP designated control would end with disaster, as those who ' bought' the iHub would be outdone by a spai farmer that runs the pathetic low contested plexes until they have control of system utilities.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#30 - 2015-02-13 18:35:05 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
I would love to see a limit of one office per station for alliance. This may seem grueling,but it would force expansion and indirectly create more' home' systems, while avoiding murder nests.


That right there is one hard core idea. I'm not sure what I think of it yet beyond, "Oh My Goodness"!

JUSTK is recruiting
Ben Ishikela
#31 - 2015-02-13 21:07:34 UTC
What about a decrease to fuelcost for POS as system bonus?
Its a commitment to anchor one. It also provokes fights ergo content. Costs should always be higher than in sov-space, as that is still the biggest commitment.
How much? There are 5 levels of control of a system, -X% on lvl1, -2*X% on lvl2, ...., -5*X% on lvl5.
As someone is able to anchor a POS in an enemy system, there should be some repercussions. => increase in fuelcost for POSs of corps that are not in the controling faction. +X% per level.
Will that increase incentive towards "owning" a system?

+1 for alliance controled stations in FWspace. how? i dont know. But also maybe too big. Seems to me like the best allurement for 0.0

Also, an alliance should be able to award players for doing stuff (like negative tax). (i.e. finishing a plex in houla gets you +1milISK or upgrading a particular system, while siseide gets you nothing extra. corps can employ deplexers for their homes that way with less work.). But that goes in the direction of advanced contracting. Which is another different feature that eve could benefit from.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#32 - 2015-02-13 21:12:19 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
What about a decrease to fuelcost for POS as system bonus?.


Me like.

JUSTK is recruiting
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#33 - 2015-02-13 22:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Ben Ishikela wrote:
What about a decrease to fuelcost for POS as system bonus?.


Me like.


I could swear I saw this FW perk on patch notes somewhere! Now I have to find it.

::edit:: here it is https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1865084#post1865084

Now if i can find out what the **** is currently in place. I feel more confused than ever. Is system bleed out 10% of a plex or 50% of a plex's value?
Richard Hellsing
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2015-02-14 03:35:19 UTC
+1

Very nice ideas.

POS fuel discounts, Station controls, Taxes,so much more.

Bring a little bit of that nulsec empire crap to the little guys, but make it awesome (instead of titan/super capitals required).
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#35 - 2015-02-14 06:12:26 UTC
ship repair discounts

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Vazkez
Doomheim
#36 - 2015-02-14 12:32:19 UTC
Varrinox wrote:
Ello ladies and gents.

Idea - Allow corporations to "buyout" overall control of 1 ihub in their militias controlled systems of their war zone.
Allow CEO/Directors etc of this corp to do things like :-
> turn off gate guns/make them not shoot their corp when aggression neuts
> Modify type and number of NPC rats in "outpost" regular re-spawning plexes
> Alter station service costs for corp/alliance/blues in system
> Possibilities for an epic amount of extras here
> Detail of how much LP to control system is of course important


To facilitate this add a LP wallet to corp wallets for FW corps.
Allow LP to be taxed at either the same or different rate to base corp tax.

My other idea.
Remove mission from FW.
Change all plexing LP pay outs to current T2 amounts.
Booster LP payouts for kills by 200-300% *
* Be careful that this isnt broken and people can just kill alts to print LP

Also remove cross warzone plexing. Amarr/Minne Pilots can only run plex timers in their warzone, and vice versa for Cal/Gal.


Thoughts/opinions/feedback/suggestions.

Of course these are all just ideas that need debating, discussing and adding to/removing but I do genuinely think that both changes would benefit FW massively.

* This is just a skeleton post of ideas to avoid wall of text, will provide more fleshed out versions at a later date *






Yeah i agree, ideas here would make FW more enjoyable and add more depth.
At the moment FW is complete ****, the only reason im doing it is because im fairly new to the game, it gives me war targets and good isk making opportunitys, but its really really boring. Plexing is worse than starting a 15th character in WoW and running the lvl 1-10 zone for the 15th time.
Fix FW please, its ****.
Vazkez
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-02-14 12:34:26 UTC
The gate guns thing is a good idea. I also think that the LP payout for PvP needs buffing like 500% or something. Such low LP for killing someone..
Oreb Wing
Last Rites.
#38 - 2015-02-14 19:19:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Oreb Wing
What do you guys think about being able to shoot and destroy the defensive plex structures of the novice, small, etc. to cause a de-spawn? I think dplexing plays a big role in system control and is relevant to this topic.

Say it has the EHP of 5 of their respective npc spawns. When you land the last hit, it goes into a timer count-down (also being the same as the actual timer of the respective plex), whether anyone is there or not. The despawn timer gets put on hold if an enemy FW pilot enters, upon which the offensive timer beings to tick, with the normal rat killing requirement in effect and all timers frozen while the npc clearing is happening. If another (or the same) defensive pilot lands and wishes to stay, he would receive a payout on the established dplex calculation either when the default timer OR the de-spawn timer exhausts.
Ben Ishikela
#39 - 2015-02-14 21:04:31 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
What do you guys think about being able to shoot and destroy the defensive plex structures of the novice, small, etc. to cause a de-spawn? (...)

I see only little conection to Home-system topic, but sounds interesting. Although the resulting lack of plex availability might be a problem for offensive. Despawn time should be long enough then and not reduce contestation as much. Will have similar effect as a time triggered reduction with a fatigue-like mechanic. But better?
For deplexing on the opposite site of low-contestation look at this if interest.

Addition to FuelReduction Boni: What about if all POS get reinforced that belong to the old militia corp, when the system is flipped? imho works well with the increase for all non-milita pos fuel consumption.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#40 - 2015-02-14 21:24:13 UTC
Oreb Wing wrote:
What do you guys think about being able to shoot and destroy the defensive plex structures of the novice, small, etc. to cause a de-spawn? I think dplexing plays a big role in system control and is relevant to this topic.

Say it has the EHP of 5 of their respective npc spawns. When you land the last hit, it goes into a timer count-down (also being the same as the actual timer of the respective plex), whether anyone is there or not. The despawn timer gets put on hold if an enemy FW pilot enters, upon which the offensive timer beings to tick, with the normal rat killing requirement in effect and all timers frozen while the npc clearing is happening. If another (or the same) defensive pilot lands and wishes to stay, he would receive a payout on the established dplex calculation either when the default timer OR the de-spawn timer exhausts.


I think it is definitely worth considering something to reduce the affect of afk deplexing alts. I'll be kind of sad when mine go away, but it is kind of a silly mechanic as it currently stands.

JUSTK is recruiting
Previous page123Next page