These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

More FW changes on SiSi

First post
Author
Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#581 - 2012-05-10 15:36:40 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

LOL!! My comment had nothing to do with the Gallente or Caldari specifically, I'm just saying that the very notion of a winning faction renting mission hub systems back to the loser for mission purposes is the kind of crazy gameplay possibilities that could emerge from the new system.

They would rent it to their own missioning alts in the other militia. That would be a crazy meta-gameplay possibility emerging from the new system. Too bad the mechanic you seemed to think was game-breaking would prevent it.

Wouldn't making militia stations open only to the side with sov make more sense, provide a unique reward for being in militia, and still have consequences when you lose it? Neutrals included. You'd still get spy alts to see who is in them, but they would be worth fighting over, especially the systems with no other militia stations.

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.

Lil Nippy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#582 - 2012-05-10 15:41:42 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:
That's what I was thinking of. What is still missing is the aspect of 'diminishing return' mentioned by the Devs. Looks like this is not implemented yet, so the pendulum has no real momentum to swing back for the losing side.

Time will tell.



The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick.

We’ve already seen how the factional LP stores vary in value depending on the easy of farming the LP with the current imbalances in level 4 missions. Factions like my own with incredibly simply mission running get farmed to death, and our LP store has one of the lowest isk / LP ratios around as a result. The markets will eventually shift according to the success of the faction, and a losing faction will soon see higher demand for its LP store offerings than ever before. The losing side will be locked out of being able to run missions, and must PvP their way back to earn that privilege. In the mean time, the losing side will be much more likely to hold onto their LP, further reducing the amount of that LP store’s offerings that reach the market, and further driving up the price.

Eventually, SOMEONE will realize the value of these offerings and intervene, that is the nature of EVE players. An organized group can take major advantage of a losing faction by making a fast, hard, push to reclaim territory, reinforce systems, and cash out all the LP they earn along the way at once they achieve the cheapest possible rates. They can than quickly dump those items on the market while the prices for those items are still at their peak market value, making an obscene profit before they start falling again. This is just one of a thousand ways the system can be gamed and advantages can be gleaned by joining and assisting a losing faction to recover their space.

Who knows whether this is how it will play out or whether we'll see something completely different, the point is that rather than just handing players cookies for losing, or arbitrarily reducing the motivations to win in the first place, the developers are specifically keying these changes to the market, so that it becomes a true sandbox where we decide what the motivation is to fight back, not CCP.


QFT.

This thread is full of idiotic prophetic rambling from raging FW carebears. Thank you Hans for some logical reason.

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#583 - 2012-05-10 15:43:37 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick.

Why wouldn't a losing empire pay its pilots more LP for the scalps of the invaders?

Enemy lockout, tangible market rewards, and safer missioning are plenty motivation to keep pressing the advantage. Giving an LP modifier for enemy kills would encourage the underdog to keep fighting.

BTW, does the LP reward for warzone control also apply to kills?

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#584 - 2012-05-10 15:53:50 UTC
Ahazu Sagam wrote:
Im getting more and more to the point were i would actually prefer a delay of the FW "features". There are still so many bugs and missing features on SISI. They managed to implement consequences and visiability (UI guys did a great job here) but were is the reward and the better gameplay? Everything looks unfinished and in some parts even crude.

-

Im also quite curious what Hans did or could have done over the last week's. It looks like he has to act as CCP's buffer at the moment and has no influence at all. Just to make it clear, i do not want to accuse him (i know there is a NDA), but dude start working! All this, im sure you will like it, they will adjuste it in the future, ... is complete bullshit. Do what you can now, people are sick of waiting for CCP to realise they did something wrong.


You contradict yourself here so many times, I don’t know where to begin. Nothing stops the snowball effect? But you just described how the winning sides LP slowly becomes worthless, increasing the value of the losing team’s LP. You seem to have a grasp on some levels of how powerful market forces will be, yet still claim it’s a system with no safeguards.

Also, I just described why a group would want to join the losing faction, because its possible to make incredible profits over the course of a campaign that assists a militia in making a major comeback. No need to go over that again.

As for the system upgrades, there will be more on the way and there’s definitely items the CSM has already been pushing for that only didn’t make it into this release due to lack of time. Thankfully CCP will be working on this up to and including a Winter expansion with even more iterations. I don’t mind someone questioning what I’ve been up to, though you are correct that much is covered by the NDA.

I can say that as a FW pilot, almost every single major complaint that the community has had as far as missing elements is being investigated, but deadlines are deadlines and this is only the first round. That is why many forum posters are panicking, and I personally seem a lot more relaxed and optimistic. CCP isn’t asking me to buffer them at all, it’s just completely useless for me to go around pitchforking on the forums for issues that I know are being worked on.

This obsession with getting it right the first time is misplaced; this is not the CCP of a year ago where we honestly wondered if they’d ever look at Faction Warfare again. They are fully committed to following through with fixing the problems that emerge from this first pass, as well as adding more meaningful rewards , upgrades, and UI in subsequent releases. Have we forgotten that expansions come out in pieces? Inferno will be no different.

TL:DR – “They’ll adjust it in the future” isn’t complete bullshit, it’s the truth. Everyone moaned and groaned with Crucible, too, claiming that it was bullshit that CCP fixed so few things. I told everyone to be patient and that with some hard work, we’ll see a full expansion to Faction Warfare in the coming summer. I think my track record speaks for itself. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Dock Workers
#585 - 2012-05-10 16:07:16 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
Lil Nippy wrote:
This thread is full of idiotic prophetic rambling from raging FW carebears. Thank you Hans for some logical reason.


Confirming that I'm a carebear.

Don't label your opposition just because they may not agree with you. Non-carebears might have ideas that don't coincide with yours.
Nitalya
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#586 - 2012-05-10 16:11:05 UTC
just a thought of the market effects of the new faction wide bonuse and penaltys....

so as it stands now you can get a navy apoc bpc for 250k lps on the live server on the test server due to the new tiered bonus/penalty thingy a navy apoc costs 400k LP, the market starves cause who is going to pay the extra lp then when and IF they price gets cheaper like lets say even back to normal the market is going to flood and it will crash cause everyone in the militia will cash in there lp at the same time and throw a major ammount of them up..

IMHO we are going to see the winning militias flooded withmission alts getting bonus to lp gain and cheaper stuff at the lp store. both bad when put togheter and the loosing side will just stop playing cause they cant support them selfts with isk cause there faction store is stupid overpriced cause we have no space. (personaly im fine have plenty of isk) but others will struggle

i would love to see ccp remove the penalty for loseing and just stick to rewarding the winning side. i would go as far to say ccp overthought this one with the new tier rewards and penaltys.

they are also promoting a sytem with NO reward for defencive plex that does notheing to promote running defence plex. example being amarr attack auga, it would be bettter for minmitar to let them take it and then plex it back themselfs cause they are rewarded to taking the system just not for defending it i would like to see cccp give half the LP reward for defence plex

other than those two game breaking fetures in my opinion ccp has done a great job on this expansion and im looking forward to seeing it go live i just hope they notice that some of these changes arent as well thought out as they originaly thought
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#587 - 2012-05-10 16:11:23 UTC
Dirk Smacker wrote:

Why wouldn't a losing empire pay its pilots more LP for the scalps of the invaders? Giving an LP modifier for enemy kills would encourage the underdog to keep fighting.




This is actually something several of us on the CSM asked CCP for, and remember nothing is off the table for future iterations on the system. We’re just at the “put your pencils down” moment here and players will just have to test the set of iterations that there was time to implement. If more perks for the losing side proves to be necessary to motivate activity levels, this would be a great mechanic to look at. I want my enemies to fight back as much as the next guy, rest assured I won’t be satisfied till there are sufficient measures in place to create constant conflict.

Dirk Smacker wrote:
Enemy lockout, tangible market rewards, and safer missioning are plenty motivation to keep pressing the advantage.


I’m sorry, but I completely disagree on handing a losing faction safe missioning. You seem to have missed one of the community’s major gripes about the Faction Warfare system, that mission farming (at least until the NPC’s get balanced) takes pilots away from the PvP which is supposed to be the primary appeal. I absolutely LOVE that in the current set of mechanics, PvP-free mission running is a privilege, not a right.

Otherwise, we’d see pilots enlist in the losing faction just to continue farming for the items that are lucrative on the market, avoiding pew pew just like happens today. This way, if someone looking at the markets decides to enlist in the losing faction to grind for LP, they have to grind it through PvP methods first (player kills and plexing). This is a MAJOR improvement and solves a problem that Faction Warfare pilots have been complaining about for quite some time.

Dirk Smacker wrote:
BTW, does the LP reward for warzone control also apply to kills?


Yes, it does.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Nitalya
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#588 - 2012-05-10 16:14:45 UTC
just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.

Nitalya
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#589 - 2012-05-10 16:19:29 UTC
[/quote]


Otherwise, we’d see pilots enlist in the losing faction just to continue farming for the items that are lucrative on the market, avoiding pew pew just like happens today. This way, if someone looking at the markets decides to enlist in the losing faction to grind for LP, they have to grind it through PvP methods first (player kills and plexing). This is a MAJOR improvement and solves a problem that Faction Warfare pilots have been complaining about for quite some time.


[/quote]

i dont see this happening as the LP cost of them will be silly due to ccp implementing penalties to the loseing faction in the form of 4x the lp cost for items. this idea of theres is going to be a game breaker and will cause more people to leave miltias and FW than it will bring in...( i still support bonuses to lp gain for the winning faction BTW)
Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#590 - 2012-05-10 16:21:11 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Otherwise, we’d see pilots enlist in the losing faction just to continue farming for the items that are lucrative on the market, avoiding pew pew just like happens today. This way, if someone looking at the markets decides to enlist in the losing faction to grind for LP, they have to grind it through PvP methods first (player kills and plexing). This is a MAJOR improvement and solves a problem that Faction Warfare pilots have been complaining about for quite some time.

Why would someone not just farm L4 missions in hi sec and pay the same price for the faction ships as the losing side?

Correct me if wrong, but aren't the prices on SiSi reset to what the npc corp LP stores offer and the militias earn their way back to what we have now?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Yes, it does.

Yikes. How do you not see snowball effect-coming?

Wouldn't some really good, small PvP corps be more inclined to join the winning side for the cheaper ships in which they will fly themselves?

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.

Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#591 - 2012-05-10 16:25:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirk Smacker
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I’m sorry, but I completely disagree on handing a losing faction safe missioning. You seem to have missed one of the community’s major gripes about the Faction Warfare system, that mission farming (at least until the NPC’s get balanced) takes pilots away from the PvP which is supposed to be the primary appeal. I absolutely LOVE that in the current set of mechanics, PvP-free mission running is a privilege, not a right.

You seemed to have misread my post or I seemed to have mistyped it. The safer mission obviously goes to those who have locked out the enemy from those systems. I was saying that it is indeed a motivating factor, but you need give the losing side some motivation to fight back, especially when outnumbered and no chance of taking a system back. Hence, why I think giving more LP to the winning side from PvP kills is an awful mistake.

I guess once you have a signature, you cannot have a blank one.

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#592 - 2012-05-10 16:27:10 UTC
Nitalya wrote:
just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec


This is obviously something we're looking into, you're talking to a Logistics pilot here. Blink My security status drops are almost exclusively because of repairing miltia members.

Nitalya wrote:
... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.


There already exists many systems throughout low sec unaffected by the war, which therefore provide a base of operations that cannot be taken away. For example, some of the Amarr militia have already retreated to Egghelende, which connects to the Hed constellation via Siseide and allows them to base a few jumps away from Minmatar sovereign space without ever suffering lockout.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#593 - 2012-05-10 16:38:23 UTC
Dirk Smacker wrote:
You seemed to have misread my post or I seemed to have mistyped it. The safer mission obviously goes to those who have locked out the enemy from those systems. I was saying that is is indeed a motivating factor, but you need give the losing side some motivation to fight back, especially when outnumbered and no chance of taking a system back. Hence, why I think giving more LP to the winning side from PvP kills is an awful mistake.


Fair enough, I’m glad we agree about the missions! Lol

And who knows, you might be right and it might be an awful mistake. It also might not be. Unfortunately my psychic powers are not quite as developed as many who are posting in the thread, leaving me unable to predict the future and declare that I know exactly how this will all turn out.

Until we get a chance to play it for a month at least and obtain *any* data at all to support all the claims that are flying around the forums, I don’t see much point in trying to pretend we’ve figured out the precise trajectory of an emergent system with dozens of new variables.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#594 - 2012-05-10 16:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Nitalya wrote:
i dont see this happening as the LP cost of them will be silly due to ccp implementing penalties to the loseing faction in the form of 4x the lp cost for items. this idea of theres is going to be a game breaker and will cause more people to leave miltias and FW than it will bring in...( i still support bonuses to lp gain for the winning faction BTW)


Remember no one is forcing anyone to cash their LP out at the 4x price level, that is purely a player choice. It's a sandbox - some will cash out anyways, either selling items on the market at absurd prices or just eating potential profits they could have gained had they been patient and worked hard to bring prices down for their faction by reclaiming space..

Wise players will hang on to their LP rewards as long as possible, and make an effort to help their faction recover. Once the prices fall, all of the accumulated LP can than be cashed out.

It's like the stock market, the value of LP will not be fixed, and will in fact vary wildly depending on who's winning and who's losing. There is no reason to feel that players are being forced into paying the high LP store prices when they have the option to save, fight back, and cash them out when their currency stretches the farthest.

Dirk Smacker wrote:
Why would someone not just farm L4 missions in hi sec and pay the same price for the faction ships as the losing side?


Because those high sec Level 4 LP's are a fixed value, and can never be made MORE valuable through a coordinated PvP campaign. LP earned in FW, however, can buy a substantially greater number of items if you work with your faction to drive the LP store cost back down and cash them out at that point in time.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

X Gallentius
Easy Eight
#595 - 2012-05-10 17:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Dirk Smacker wrote:

Wouldn't some really good, small PvP corps be more inclined to join the winning side for the cheaper ships in which they will fly themselves?
Our Exeqeror Navy Issues will blot out the sun!

Edit: BTW, this has been my LP strategy all along. As isk/lp goes down, I just buy more Federation Navy faction ships and use them instead. Cheap faction ammo too. etc...
Ahazu Sagam
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#596 - 2012-05-10 17:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ahazu Sagam
Quote:
The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick


So they/you hope that market pvp with one item will be enaugh to keep the force balanced. I know there is more than one unique item in the milita LP store, but who uses FW imps and i do not see so many navy augorer's(sythe's). The item of choice is here the navy tier 1 BS (geddon/phoon) and this is no bulk commodity. Even when we are optimistic and say the navy cruiser will be a factor too, who in hell would buy an overpriced faction BS/cruiser if he can get a pirate ship for almost the same price? The rest of the items can be gained from other LP stores for 25% of the LP and ISK costs, so no real FW based marked pvp with them.

Quote:
CCP isn’t asking me to buffer them at all, it’s just completely useless for me to go around pitchforking on the forums for issues that I know are being worked on.


Then go to the CSM forum and create a topic, post the things there that you adressed to the dev's, lock the topic and keep it on the front page. This isnt that hard and people would see that you are actually working on stuff and they wouldnt spam the forum continuously. E.g. i still dont know if CCP has realised that i can dock in enemy high while they denie docking in low
X Gallentius
Easy Eight
#597 - 2012-05-10 17:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Because those high sec Level 4 LP's are a fixed value, and can never be made MORE valuable through a coordinated PvP campaign. LP earned in FW, however, can buy a substantially greater number of items if you work with your faction to drive the LP store cost back down and cash them out at that point in time.
I predict fail. There will have to be a substantial infusion of players into the losing side for them to "quickly make headway".

First, it'll be very difficult to take systems that are more than one jump from a basing system due to plexing mechanics (reshipping issues due to station lockout, takes at least 40 hours to flip undefended system).

Second, they won't have the isk income to compete. While a counterattack mIght lead to more fights for a while, the side that is down will soon lose to attrition. If this gets to a 4: 1/4 ratio, then Intaki L4 agent = 1.5*16* High Sec Caldari Agent in LP and isk payout. Coordinate all you want, winning side has the means to leroy 24 times as many ships (in value) into the battle as losing side does. (The side leroying 24 times as many ships in value is going to win more than lose, btw).

My guess is that the Gallente/Caldari front settles on a 2: 1/2 ratio in which case the difference in payouts will be a factor of five or more. Good luck Bolster!

Go ahead and respond or not. I could be wrong, let new system play out, yada yada yada.....
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#598 - 2012-05-10 17:47:39 UTC
Cross-posting a great set of answers from the developers about the upcoming changes, and what lies beyond the May 22 release:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1278754#post1278754

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#599 - 2012-05-10 18:45:53 UTC
Amarrian Slavetrader wrote:
You guys are screwed. Technical evaluation.

Lol

:sadness: because it is true Sad
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#600 - 2012-05-10 19:14:07 UTC
chatgris wrote:
But they were clueless enough to get ganked by boosted nano-drake rather than Caldari who already know my tricks and dont waste ships stupidly so the long-haired hippie from Nennamaila could feel good about himself


Fixed that for you.