These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ideas for making Faction Warfare Better.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#1 - 2017-03-02 11:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Hi,

I have been involved in Faction Warfare (FW) for a little while now and it is great. There are however some problems with it, and I'd like to offer some ideas and open up discussion into how it could be improved.

One of the big problems with FW is that the whole system tends toward dynamic instability (from a systems engineering point of view). Which is to say that once one side has secured some advantage in tier there is then a large incentive for the general mass of pilots to join the winning side. As they are purely seeking profit and it makes sense to join the side with the highest tier. This means that their opponents get well and truly shafted.

Not only are the opposing team facing a more organised, and better resourced one, and, earning fewer LP for their efforts. But they are also encumbered with dwindling numbers of casual pilots and an ever greater swell of opportunistic profiteers joining the other side. They can break out of this deadlock only with a great deal of difficulty.

The second major issue is that the system of players donating LP to system upgrades relies solely on the charity of individual players. Many of whom are casual members of the militia and interested primarily in personal profit. The problem is essentially that individual player goals are not in alignment with the overall goals of the militia.

The third major issue is that the mechanics become rather dry and rehearsed. The whole process of capturing complexes is rather repetitive, unvarying, and not immersive.

***

SOLUTIONS:

1. Tweak the tier percentages to maintain some baseline position, and minimise the marginal gains as factions achieve a higher tier.

2. Provide some equalising mechanics to reward pilots for joining the loosing militia. Perhaps a stipend of ISK which is divided evenly among members of the militia - such that members of the smaller militia will get more ISK. Or some LP bonus multiplier for making player ship kills against the superior force.

3. Whenever a player earns LP a mandatory percentage of this ought to be deducted and added to the LP pool at the system hub. This ensures an minimum donation level among all of the players on a side.

4. I'd like to see more of a dynamic space battle. With squadrons and fleets of NPC faction navy ships duking it out - and also killing NPC rats. I think this is a great opportunity to implement an NPC AI. Those ships should be flying around to random celestials, bombarding planets, and of course they should also be fully interactive with FW players. Such that players can get involved in these battles and earn LP & Victory Points (VP) by blowing up the enemy NPC navy ships.

Of course the frequency of these NPC interactions should be dictated by the system contest level - and the ship classes involved should be dictated by the system upgrade level. Perhaps something like this:

Frequency of NPC Naval Ships

  • Stable to 25% Contested = 1.5% Chance of finding NPC fleets belonging only to the faction in control the system.
    • 25 to 50% Contested = 6.25% Chance of finding Navy fleet of either side at any celestial.
    50% to 75% Contested = 12.5% Chance
    75% to 100% Contested = 25% Chance
    Vulnerable = 50% Chance


Size of Ships According to System Upgrade Level


  • - - None
    • I - Frigates and Corvettes
    II - Destroyers and Frigates
    III - Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates.
    IV - Battleships, Battlecruisers, and Cruisers.
    V - Carriers, Dreadnoughts, and Battleships.



/discuss
Cade Windstalker
#2 - 2017-03-02 14:17:17 UTC
There's been a lot of discussion about some of this over the years, I highly recommend looking it up. For a crash course on why this isn't so simple, if nothing else.

Regarding your issues:


  1. This one's been discussed to death and back. I've seen about half a dozen different solutions proposed, some are potentially viable, some aren't. All of them have a problem with some kind of perverse incentive of one flavor or another. It's easy to say "well, tweak the numbers a bit!" but it's much harder to actually find what those tweaks should actually be. I would also point out that "dynamic instability" is pretty much one of the design goals of Eve. As long as winners and losers in the FWar space swing back and forth then the system is at least meeting minimum goals, even if it's not ideal.

  2. This isn't a problem, it's a feature. Welcome to Eve.

  3. This just isn't fixable. FWar already incentivizes PvP, but there's no way for CCP to make any kind of PvE system that isn't going to be figured out faster than CCP can replace or tweak the system.


Regarding your solutions:


  1. Like I said, easy to say hard to do. There would almost definitely need to be some other mechanical change rather than just tweaking percentages and values to solve the problem people are complaining about, and without very very careful implementation you're likely to get another problem in place of the old one. People can live with old problems, they tend to be very unforgiving of new ones.

  2. Again, see #1. Also, perverse incentives ahoy!

  3. Just no. You may as well just turn the hub into something directly connected to the grind. Taking away someone's LP just feels bad. The only reason to do this over just having sites award LP *and* hub progress is to incentivize offensive 'plexing or disincentivize 'plexing outside of fully upgraded systems, assuming the LP tax stops when a system hits full upgrades. The whole point of the "Pay LP for communal benefit" is to promote organization, just because not everyone pays does not mean there is a problem. Eve is, after all, a dystopia.

  4. Oh man, so many problems with this... For a start this would be amazingly farmable. Either I wait until the NPCs kill each other and loot their wrecks, or if they only drop loot when a player damages them then I do a little damage to everyone and then wait for my friendly NPCs to kill them, and if that doesn't work I loiter around in a high-alpha ship and farm last-hits. The only way to prevent both of these is to basically disincentivize interacting with these NPCs entirely by making them not rewarding to interact with.

    5. On top of that Eve is, first and foremost, a player drive game. So NPC fleets fighting each other goes somewhat against the grain of the game, especially making something like this a core piece of a system. Plus the general complaint with Factional Warfare is that it needs more PvP, not more PvE.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#3 - 2017-03-02 16:46:35 UTC
Thanks Cade Windstalker,

Without re-quoting the above.

1. I don't see why any additional mechanisms are required. All that is required is a reducing marginal increase same as with just about everything else in this game. The only real problem is with knowing what those numbers ought to be, which, I imagine would need to be solved by calculation, testing, and tweaking.

2. We might have to disagree there. If I've understood this game correctly, the emphasis is on encouraging conflict and rewarding risk. The system we have now in FW is the exact opposite of this. It is rewarding people for taking the safer path, and joining the winner. That is entirely against the ethos of EVE Online.

3. The problem I see is that FW is trying to put a militaristic concept into a self-centred paradigm. A military formation can perform adequately only when the goals of the individual are in alignment with that of the whole. Appealing to "espree-de-core" only goes so far.

4. I don't see it as a problem - and I don't see why this community gets so polarised with PvP and PvE. I see it as necessary and immersive... To answer your concerns directly, I'd imagine that the NPC navy would be much like the current NPC's in the sites - doing moderate DPS and having a strong active tank. Thus the NPC attrition would be very small without player help. I would imagine that they would be fully capable in terms of EWAR, and would aggressively engage opposing FW players. They would also be visible on D-scan just like the NPC mining ops.

Yes, the system would be farmable. However, you will notice that this of itself is an incentive for PvP. As it gets players out of the sites and into the system generally. When players start farming, they become targets for hunters of all kinds. It is a much more dynamic form of PvP - and also has the potential to upset some set piece activities in very interesting ways.
Cade Windstalker
#4 - 2017-03-02 18:05:33 UTC

  1. The reason some additional mechanism would be required is that as long as there is an advantage to one side or the other, no matter how small, you're going to have people flipping from one to the other or loading up characters on one vs the other to play. The advantage could be removed entirely but then winning doesn't come with any kind of mechanical reward and that ends up encouraging stagnation since neither side has any kind of incentive to actually push the boundaries of the zone in either direction, it just reduces farming opportunities.

  2. Then I think the term you're looking for is not "dynamic imbalance". I'm not disagreeing that the general incentive structure in FWar has issues, this has been known and talked about by people for years now, many of whom have been in FWar since the beginning. I just don't think that anything falling under the term "dynamic imbalance" is the issue here, or at least the correct term for the issue you are describing. That advantages and winners should shift is intentional, that things should snowball like they do due to farmers is less than ideal.

  3. Hence the mechanical advantages of upgraded systems. Also FWar is a militia, not a military. It's up to the individuals and groups participating if they want to work together and help each other out. Some of the best moments in Factional Warfare have come about because two groups ostensibly on the same side ended up fighting each other or at least on different sides of a battle because their immediate goals diverged with hilarious results.

  4. Because PvE is, pretty much by definition, going to end up being boring after a certain point. PvE exists to provide rewards and people do PvE generally to fund their PvP habit or otherwise let them do things they consider to be more fun than simply shooting predictable NPCs. Within the requirements of this framework there is only so much that CCP can allow NPCs to do that will still be balanced and provide an adequate mix of risk and rewards.

    5. For this reason any PvE that is remotely balanced will quickly end up being boring. PvE that isn't balanced will either be avoided if the risk/reward balance too heavily favors the risk side, or farmed to an unhealthy degree if the balance favors the rewards.

    This applies even to advanced AI like the Sleepers, Drifters, or the NPC mining ops. Players figure out the minimum required to deal with the presented challenge and do exactly that, refining the process quickly down to a series of rote actions.

    The reason players get very touchy about mixing PvE with PvP is because Eve is fundamentally a game about PvP. The warning label on the tin is pretty much "Warning, will contain PvP, if you try to pick out the PvP and only eat the caramel ones the PvP will come find you and jump down your throat." PvE has no such associated warning label though, and people generally want the freedom to avoid it if they choose to. This is why PvE is such a small element of Factional Warfare and why even the NPC police are basically treated like an environmental hazard.

    Lastly, I think it's a bit naive to assume that someone farming NPCs shooting each other is going to make for any better of a PvP target than someone farming FWar complexes. In neither case is the player in question going to be likely to want to engage and aggressor, being more likely to want to try and escape, even if they're actively fighting the NPCs rather than picking off scraps. The one probable exception is if the NPCs on their side will then turn and fight the new aggressor, at which point you've created safer PvP for FWar pilots rather than making it more dangerous. In neither case do I feel like this is particularly valuable gameplay.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#5 - 2017-03-02 18:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Because PvE is, pretty much by definition, going to end up being boring after a certain point. PvE exists to provide rewards and people do PvE generally to fund their PvP habit or otherwise let them do things they consider to be more fun than simply shooting predictable NPCs. Within the requirements of this framework there is only so much that CCP can allow NPCs to do that will still be balanced and provide an adequate mix of risk and rewards.

For this reason any PvE that is remotely balanced will quickly end up being boring. PvE that isn't balanced will either be avoided if the risk/reward balance too heavily favors the risk side, or farmed to an unhealthy degree if the balance favors the rewards.

This applies even to advanced AI like the Sleepers, Drifters, or the NPC mining ops. Players figure out the minimum required to deal with the presented challenge and do exactly that, refining the process quickly down to a series of rote actions.

The reason players get very touchy about mixing PvE with PvP is because Eve is fundamentally a game about PvP. The warning label on the tin is pretty much "Warning, will contain PvP, if you try to pick out the PvP and only eat the caramel ones the PvP will come find you and jump down your throat." PvE has no such associated warning label though, and people generally want the freedom to avoid it if they choose to. This is why PvE is such a small element of Factional Warfare and why even the NPC police are basically treated like an environmental hazard.

Lastly, I think it's a bit naive to assume that someone farming NPCs shooting each other is going to make for any better of a PvP target than someone farming FWar complexes. In neither case is the player in question going to be likely to want to engage and aggressor, being more likely to want to try and escape, even if they're actively fighting the NPCs rather than picking off scraps. The one probable exception is if the NPCs on their side will then turn and fight the new aggressor, at which point you've created safer PvP for FWar pilots rather than making it more dangerous. In neither case do I feel like this is particularly valuable gameplay.


Happy to leave all those points there. On the last point I think it would be more interesting in the sense that the NPC targets are no longer at a site which can be warped to. They can move about system, and need to be located with scanners They can warp in at unexpected places, aggressing FW players and forcing them to adapt. It's more organic in the sense that it more closely resembles conventional PvP. It gets players out of the Dead zone sites, and into the system at large. The farming you speak off would more closely resemble ratting.

I don't think you should see this kind of thing as being purely PvE. Rather think of it a the living environment in which PvP takes place. It introduces more variables - and CCP has already demonstrated that they can write more elaborate AI for the NPC's. So I'm interested to see where they go with this.

But perhaps most important of all. It makes the place feel more dangerous - and would make FW players feel like they are actually in a warzone.
Jasmin Yeva
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2017-03-03 01:01:53 UTC
How about introducing Incursions-like effects into FW?

Like every system in war zone isn't just faceless system, but have its own effect for the controlling side (either buffs to them or penelties to the enemies) and it has effect not only in that system, but also affects neighbouring systems.
So that will make player cooperation more rewarding (you organize and strike enemy's key system) and things a little less predictable (capture their logistics system, defend our propaganda system, e.t.c.).
Don't know though whether types of effects each system has needs to be set for each system, or let players "vote" for the system effect with LP donations.

And turn off this tier system (when winning side gets more LP), instead give more LP for fighting in system with more effects stacked agains player's faction. So in the end players will both have incentives to fight on the winning side (it will be easier for them to fight) and on the losing side (they will gain more LP per hour if they manage to overcome the odds).
Cade Windstalker
#7 - 2017-03-03 01:57:53 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Happy to leave all those points there. On the last point I think it would be more interesting in the sense that the NPC targets are no longer at a site which can be warped to. They can move about system, and need to be located with scanners They can warp in at unexpected places, aggressing FW players and forcing them to adapt. It's more organic in the sense that it more closely resembles conventional PvP. It gets players out of the Dead zone sites, and into the system at large. The farming you speak off would more closely resemble ratting.

I don't think you should see this kind of thing as being purely PvE. Rather think of it a the living environment in which PvP takes place. It introduces more variables - and CCP has already demonstrated that they can write more elaborate AI for the NPC's. So I'm interested to see where they go with this.

But perhaps most important of all. It makes the place feel more dangerous - and would make FW players feel like they are actually in a warzone.


This sort of behavior is more or less exactly what people tend to say they *don't* want out of PvE in Eve. As I said, the PvP in Eve comes with a "will come find you" disclaimer. PvE has no such warning and really shouldn't come with one. Eve is, after all, a player driven game. That's why the few NPC types that do roam around aren't aggressive unless aggressed first. The one exception to this is the Drifters in Wormholes, and those require a player action to spawn in the first place.

The other problem with this is that the things that make a good PvP fit and the things that make a good ratting fit are, if not complete opposites, then at least significantly at odds with each other. This is another reason that Eve tends not to forcefully mix PvP and PvE in any significant quantities.

To be clear, it's not so much the general idea that I have issues with, it's the idea that these NPCs are going to A. fight and destroy each other which makes them farmable, and B. fight players without being aggressed first which takes a primarily PvP activity and turns it into a PvE one.

The first issue is probably fixable, albeit in a somewhat kludge-y manner. The second is not while maintaining the core of your idea.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#8 - 2017-03-03 05:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Again. Your polarisation of PvP and PvE is very annoying. You are under this misguided conception that PvP ought to be pure and devoid of environmental factors. I don't agree with this. There is no such thing as pure PvP, and random chance does always have a role to play. If you limit your gameplay concepts to dry and stale mechanisms, then, you will have a dry and stale game which no one will want to play.

To address your concens directly:

A. I would imagine the NPC navy ships would be heavily fitted toward low DPS and high HP. As such they will not be destroying each other at any rate which is farmable.

B. Considering that the NPC's would be capable of scram, web, and EWAR - as well as having more elaborate behaviours such as warping away when heavily damaged. The fittings required to take them on would be largely consistent with those required for PvP.... In any case, a PvE fitting would be ill-advised considering the very likely possibility of enemy player intervention.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
#9 - 2017-03-03 05:24:17 UTC
Jasmin Yeva wrote:
How about introducing Incursions-like effects into FW?

Like every system in war zone isn't just faceless system, but have its own effect for the controlling side (either buffs to them or penelties to the enemies) and it has effect not only in that system, but also affects neighbouring systems.
So that will make player cooperation more rewarding (you organize and strike enemy's key system) and things a little less predictable (capture their logistics system, defend our propaganda system, e.t.c.).
Don't know though whether types of effects each system has needs to be set for each system, or let players "vote" for the system effect with LP donations.

And turn off this tier system (when winning side gets more LP), instead give more LP for fighting in system with more effects stacked agains player's faction. So in the end players will both have incentives to fight on the winning side (it will be easier for them to fight) and on the losing side (they will gain more LP per hour if they manage to overcome the odds).


That is an interesting idea.