EVE Information Portal

Sure, Data Core Collection was boring - but it was just one aspect of being a builder. Data Cores are a resource needed for Invention. The active part was using them to do Invention. Now you are just forcing me to do something else to manage cost of Invention, or stop with my active passion - Invention.
Sounds like, to do Invention at reduced cost, I will have to learn pvp.

Two paths I can see: stop doing Invention, or be surprised that data core costs have gone done because so many are being harvested via Factional Warfare. This is not what I expect....
Unfortunately many of the most expensive cores (isk wise) are now also twice as expensive RP point wise - was only gaining 50 points over the last months - so am only getting half of what I expected to harvest. The starship datacores were often the cheapest to buy and they cost even less RP than before. Read: expensive are more expensive; cheap are even cheaper.

But I guess we all have our nerfs we have to live through. I learned that long ago.

I'm on it already, but thanks for pointing it out! I'm talking about it with the devs on Skype, it should be a straightforward thing to fix.

The addition of datacores to FW makes no sense to me. You're expecting industrialists to join FW, ruin their standings with 2 factions, divert skills to being able to fight rather than continuing with industrial skills? I don't get it.

If the only issue was to eliminate effortless farming, there were much better ways to do it. Less RP from sitting around and more from running missions for that agent, offer the missions more often, limit the amount of RP you can save with any agent (cap it), or come up with a new mechanic that industrialists could do.

If the issue is giving better rewards to FW, why don't you ask them what they want? I doubt that datacores would have been high on the list.

I don't think so, other than someone keeping an eye on the percentages for change. But remember, this UI is just a framework upon which more will be added, so that's certainly something I can suggest.

The fun thing about last night was watching how quickly that Warzone Control bar moved back and forth, The Amarr had almost stripped the Minnies of their beloved half-price LP store bonus we poured our entire LP savings to obtain, taking away 5% in just a couple hours and putting us on the brink of tier 3 instead of tier 4. Nice work! Keep at it.

Every plex now has a sense of urgency, since stripping the enemy of their system upgrades hurts their warzone control far more than by simply seizing a single system. This is because the most efficient way to earn WZ control points is to upgrade several lower level systems instead of spending it all in the same place. For example, the 30,000 LP it takes to earn (1) WZ control point by upgrading to level 5 from level 4, could be used to bump 2 other systems from level 1 to level 2, earning (2) WZ control points instead.

Based on the activity we're already seeing emerge (much of the contesting was taking place in Metropolis systems by the time I logged last night) we should end up with a lot of backwater plexing and counter-plexing by small distributed gangs or solo pilots, since there's way more warzone impact a faction can inflict by spreading out instead of concentrating in a front-line system.

The underdog will of course still have to come up with a plan for taking systems to increase their own WZ control benefits, but taking systems itself isn't mission critical if you just want to hurt the enemy's economy. There is plenty of pain that the small skirmish groups can inflict, which is really encouraging.

Keep sharing your stories and experiences as events unfold! The war is LIVE and the lines are moving.

You can keep copypasting this stepping stone buzzword over and over again, but its patently untrue. FW players have suggested ALL of the following over the last three years, anyone studying historical threads can find these ideas plain and simple, whether or not each of you are completely satisfied with their specific implementation:

- LP for plexing
- Increased LP for kills
- Consequence to loss (including station lockout)
- Passive upgrades to systems based on control
- Tiered systems of upgrades
- An overhauled UI
- Useful warzone data

Stuff CCP is working or going to work on but didn't quite make the deadline: (Each being player-requested features as well)

- Any remaining plexing bugs
- Additional system upgrades, including cynojammers (a null mechanic VERY popular among the current FW community)
- NPC balancing in missions, complexes
- Improved ranking system
- Revamping plex permissions (fixing pirate frigs / cruisers and coming up with a more sensible hierarchy of ship types allowed)

If you don't like all those things, blame the community. These are the items that have been stickied at the top of the main FW feedback thread, they are what I asked CSM6 to talk to CCP about last fall, they're what I've talked about during the election, they're what everyone's been saying for years. This idea that CCP disregarded the community couldn't be further from the truth. They've disregarded an angry portion of the community, but that is true of literally everything they've ever changed about the game. Granted, if you're in that angry portion, it feels like great injustice, but that doesn't mean that CCP doesn't care about players in general.

The bottom line is, until FW becomes about sovereignty blockade units and engaging in capital fleet structure shoots to control space, until we have massive expanses of space with little stations, until we have player-built outposts, until we have bubbles and bombs affecting the fluidity of small gang combat, FW gameplay will never be akin to null sec, except for a few overlapping mechanics.

The confusion that caused this silly "nullsec lite" notion to persist is that CCP once suggested using FW mechanics to augment 0.0 sovereignty mechanics, not the other way around. The documentation of this discussion was poor, and players assumed the worst.

If anything, 0.0 should be far more afraid that they'll end up with a "FW lite" system than we should be of getting more null sec game play rammed down our throats as you suggest.

For the rest of you, I hope you enjoy the long-overdue changes and take the time to help the developers out by letting them know what you'd like to see next! Keep me up to date on the bugs, issues, ideas for iterations as you test out the new tools, I love hearing from you all. Send me a mail or a convo in-game anytime.

Future changes discussion threads:

FW I-hub and system upgrades

FW: rebalancing NPCs and you

defensive plexing feedback:

please make that less painfull
suggestions:
- 2x faster timer
- or at least a small LP reward
edit: - or even let it automatically fall back to the original faction (5x slower timer) if the plex was left in unfinished state

if you sit at the flag, nobody enters and nothing happens it totally feels like wasted time

docking rights are a good thing. They realy are not the issue of the current system.

The main problem in my opinion is that the weaker faction has almost no chance to recover. Nobody will buy navy geddons for 1mil lp right now. The longer this state holds on the weaker the faction will get overall. Docking rights are totaly irrelevant. We still can dock in 11 stations. Even IF we would lose ALL of them we could dock 1j away from a FW system...


So how to solve that problem?
Instead of doing the "math thing" and calculating the lp prices through war progress CCP could approach it differently.

Lets say every system gives the faction a certain set of LP offers. So instead of having no reason at all to buy something from the store, the weaker faction could still buy SOMETHING to REASONABLE prices from the store. Balancing this is a bit more work as implementing a simple formula for lp prices obviously.

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that it’s not what they’ve said at all. For starters, you can see exactly what the lead designer for EVE Online has to say about your insistence that they’re trying to turn FW into 0.0.

There is a substantial difference between saying that players will USE it as a stepping stone, and saying they are designing it to become 0.0. You are parsing words, and misrepresenting the developers. I’ll be the first to say that FW is for everyone. Not just those of us into small gang pew, or those into blob warfare, those into solo plexing, or those in to mission running. It’s for everyone. And yes, it will and should be used as a low-barrier way for young pilots to learn PvP. If those pilots move on to null sec, great! Doesn’t matter. If they stick around and make a career out of FW? That’s great too. It’s a sandbox. YOU may feel that its not ok for it to be used in this fashion, but it is. And its ok for others to feel the same way.

CCP Soundwave’s pretty frank explanation about the 0.0 thing is absolutely consistent with what they’ve said and shown me internally, there is simply no reason for you to take one term: “stepping stone” and blow it out of proportion and say that is their entire design intent. It’s blatant fearmongering, and utterly false, no matter how many times you want to parrot it about.

Secondly, your assertion that only one or two individuals in the community brought up station lockout, is also completely untrue. EVE-searches clear that up pretty easily, but you’re welcome to keep making numbers up. My feedback to CCP has always been a frank portrayal of the community – divided on the issue, with some adamantly opposed to it and others willing to try it, with some even welcoming the issue. My personal view has always been “I’m dubious about it, it would ONLY be acceptable if they increased flip times. I’d much rather see a softer solution instead”. I haven’t swayed from that since, despite your attempts at describing me as flip-flopping on the issue. Again, any simple review of the forums, my blog, or my radio interviews can confirm that.

You can call me biased and incoherent all day long, the facts speak for themselves. It simply a shame you continue to waste the community’s time and the developers time by devolving these threads into “Hans is brainwashed” character attacks instead of putting forth any kind of useful feedback.

Wow big surprise that he claims they were not doing this in light of the huge backlash from faction war players that they did not want faction war to be like null sec.

The problem is he forgot to send the memo out to the other developers that they are not supposed to admit that they are making faction war as a first taste of null sec so they can easilly step into that part of the game like was described in 2:38-2:52 of the video I linked.

Or Yitterbaum specifically said he it was a design point to make it a stepping stone to null sec in his interview on bringing solo back.

I'm not saying it was the only goal but it clearly was a goal. The developers said it was. I think that is unfortunate. Because i don't think null sec needs a stepping stone. Especially sov null sec.




BS I refer to what the developers said. You are the one who linked one dev trying to do damage control when players reacted negatively to how inferno makes fw "null sec lite."





Again I provide the sources for what the community that elected you was saying. Please if I missed lots of people give me the link in the thread. If you are asking whether this topic came up in the entire history of faction war yes I agree it has. Copying and pasting ideas from one area of the game to another is a pretty easy solution. Why not apply null sec mechanics to faction war? Why not apply incursions to faction war? Yes people have mentioned these ideas over time of course. For you to suggest that just because they have been brought up means that the community is to blame for ccp locking us out of stations is pretty extreme.

Bottom line you provide no link showing any sort of community consensus on this issue. I have provided threads that by your own work you have identified areas of consensus and that one is not listed. Indeed I even show your similar but less severe idea of station guns was not even really accepted.

But again you can keep imagining history how you want it people who want to see what really happened can look at the links I provided. While we are looking at history here is one of your campaign videos that no doubt motivated the community that elected you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPCggF0O8_o

There is a difference between

1) giving and economic incentive to fight.
and
2) making it harder for the smaller side to actually combat the other.

The lp stuff deals with #1. Station lock outs is #2.

I do faction war for the pvp. So I don't mind being on the smaller faction. The fact that I am in the smaller faction makes pvp harder already. CCP doesn't need to implement mechanics that make it even harder for the underdog to fight back.