These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

FW: I-hub and system upgrades

First post First post
Author
Lock out
Shadows Of The Federation
#241 - 2012-08-31 17:42:44 UTC
Any plans for implementing a system where a corp can tax LP or at least player can donate LP to their corp ?


As things are atm, FW corps are relying heavly on donations from their members. Granted, their members are filthy rich and contribute, but would be nice for them to have the possibility to contribute without effectively transfering isk from their wallets.
fingie
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#242 - 2012-08-31 17:49:09 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I want more reasons for people to want to participate in FW.


Except when you don't, I guess :)
Del Vikus
Sundered Core
#243 - 2012-08-31 17:55:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Del Vikus
Without geting into the substance of the changes, can I just say that I'm really happy with this new culture of interaction, iteration, and community consulting you guys are doing? It's extremely encouraging. :)
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#244 - 2012-08-31 17:58:24 UTC
I've never seen an answer to this question. Is there plans to make FW missions only spawn in systems that border your factions space? what I mean is If FW missions spawned one jump into enemy space, then enemy missions would spawn next to where you run missions. Thus making the PvE in FW almost a kind of PvP and justifying the rewards!

plus it focuses more player into the fighting area, makes grouping up more natural.

So if this isn't such a good idea can't you just tell me why? : /

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#245 - 2012-08-31 17:58:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



Aryth wrote:
So why is lowsec/FW receiving the very fixes all of null needs for production? Is there a plan to give the same upgrades to null?


Honestly it's because we're working on FW this release. Once we get to Null, encouraging local industry and reducing reliance on Jita is high on the to-do list.


Hot! Thanks. Please look at a PI depletion modifying upgrade while you guys are at it.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#246 - 2012-08-31 18:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Altivs Obvisivs wrote:
Maybe I've missed it and appologise if I did, but will PoS fuel cost reductions apply only to FW corps/alliances or will it apply to everyone within a system?


Current plan is for it to apply to everyone.


Aryth wrote:
So why is lowsec/FW receiving the very fixes all of null needs for production? Is there a plan to give the same upgrades to null?


Honestly it's because we're working on FW this release. Once we get to Null, encouraging local industry and reducing reliance on Jita is high on the to-do list.


Sooner rather than later, please. But make sure it's done right. I'm, uh, not sure nullsec players will put up with a botched revamp.


e: Fozzie, Ytterbium: One concern I have with this is that it's not until winter. Yes, I know, code takes time to write and test, but farming is rampant, and I think that the doomsday scenario that I outlined in my article on the topic is a completely realistic possibility, especially with mission farming - the bugged agent was especially bad, but multiboxing L4 missions is still hysterically egregious. Any thoughts on it? I'd hate for this fix to come in on winter only for the system to be wrecked beyond salvaging.

What I'm saying here is that you might find it beneficial to turn off the FW missions. It's not like they don't feel out of place in a PvP system anyway, and speaking as a guy who's farmed a couple hundred of them for standings for my market alts, beacons for them on the overview is irrelevant - pvp doesn't happen at them anyway.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#247 - 2012-08-31 18:02:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Aryth wrote:
So why is lowsec/FW receiving the very fixes all of null needs for production? Is there a plan to give the same upgrades to null?


Honestly it's because we're working on FW this release. Once we get to Null, encouraging local industry and reducing reliance on Jita is high on the to-do list.

So thats what only 2 years out from nullsec not being a giant ******* waste of time to do anything but circle jerk in stations in?
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#248 - 2012-08-31 18:04:50 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Sooner rather than later, please. But make sure it's done right. I'm, uh, not sure nullsec players will put up with a botched revamp.

WHAT!?! I thought you lot LOVED the awesomeness of Dominion Big smile

It was always the schedule to put FW to bed and then go full tilt on nulls arses as far as I know. 'Tis a big job and they'll probably need all hands on deck to pull it off in a timely manner.
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#249 - 2012-08-31 18:25:20 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Sooner rather than later, please. But make sure it's done right. I'm, uh, not sure nullsec players will put up with a botched revamp.

WHAT!?! I thought you lot LOVED the awesomeness of Dominion Big smile

Dominion will be a good expansion when CCP finish it.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Dock Workers
#250 - 2012-08-31 18:32:36 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:

* Attacking complexes don't pay anything in vulnerable systems: currently it is possibly to still gain LPs and VPs in vulnerable systems, not only allowing you to farm the system instead of taking the I-hub, but also give you a huge VP buffer as they keep piling up indefinitely. Plan is to stop attackers from getting LPs and VPs when system is vulnerable - we would still leave a small VP buffer for attackers, but nothing bigger than 100-200 VPs.


I suggest that you are not able to buffer the vulnerability of systems at all. I very much like the idea that a bunker busting fleet can't just farm a system to a very vu;nerable state, drop a blob on it and kill it. Instead, a bunker busting fleet should be forced to bring a diverse role of ships that can defend complexes during the bunker bust. It adds urgency to the defense of a system "if I can get just this one plex that whole fleet can't hit the bunker anymore". Can lead to epic king of the hill micro-cosm battles within a larger fight for a system.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#251 - 2012-08-31 18:41:43 UTC
chatgris wrote:

I suggest that you are not able to buffer the vulnerability of systems at all. I very much like the idea that a bunker busting fleet can't just farm a system to a very vu;nerable state, drop a blob on it and kill it. Instead, a bunker busting fleet should be forced to bring a diverse role of ships that can defend complexes during the bunker bust. It adds urgency to the defense of a system "if I can get just this one plex that whole fleet can't hit the bunker anymore". Can lead to epic king of the hill micro-cosm battles within a larger fight for a system.


Couldn't agree more. Far and away the most fun I had during a system flip was when my roaming gang of frigates and destroyers got roped into defending plexes in Uusanen from FWedditors while LNA guys in tier 3s blitzed the bunker. There was a small fight on the bunker in an attempt to break up the bash fleet, and then the wartargets scattered to the system's plexes and and we had to chase them out and keep more from entering system. Make flipping a system a frantic scramble to get it done before the other side comes in an decontests it. If we do have a VP buffer, make it very, very small.
Gabriel Darkefyre
Gradient
Electus Matari
#252 - 2012-08-31 19:13:07 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Altivs Obvisivs wrote:
Maybe I've missed it and appologise if I did, but will PoS fuel cost reductions apply only to FW corps/alliances or will it apply to everyone within a system?


I hope it applies to EVERYONE in the system. I want more reasons for people to live and work in lowsec (and move industrial operations there - creating food for pirates) and I want more reasons for people to want to participate in FW.

No, I don't care if my enemy saves fuel cost in my upgraded system. By all mean, come on in and set your POS up. Lol


Personally, I'd hope for it to only apply to Militia Members of the Faction holding Sovereignty. Anyone else should not be affected by the Upgrades.

If someone wants to take advantage of the Rewards of an upgraded FW System, then they should need to sign up to the Militia and be exposed to the Inherent Risks of being in the Militia (Ships and Structures become a legitimate target to the opposing 2 Militias, for one)

And more targets is a good thing, right?
M'uva Wa'eva
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
#253 - 2012-08-31 19:57:26 UTC
Having extra manufacturing and research slots is all very well, but doesn't guarantee the benefit is received by FW members. I think the controlling faction should be able to reserve these in-station benefits to their members/those who have actively supported their cause.

Suggestion: Anyone can, in theory, use research and manufacturing slots in FW stations - BUT instead of paying install and time-based fees in ISK, you pay in LP.

Result: Active militia pilots gain the benefit from manufacturing and research bonuses, rather than upgrading a system only to see neutral third parties gain the industrialist benefits of upgrades.
Souisa
WESCORP 2.0
#254 - 2012-08-31 20:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Souisa
I really think CCP should nerf the amount of LP you get per mision when doing FW. Atm i just have to do 10 missions then i can solo upgrade an i-hub to tier 5? Getting 100k LP is easy.

Also with this amount of LP i can wait until Tier5 LP discounts, and basically get a **** load of stuff

o/

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2012-08-31 20:22:19 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Alot of the farmers will quit as the profits will not be the same.
vOv

They'll go back to farming incursions, I guess.
Mackenzie Ayres
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#256 - 2012-08-31 20:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mackenzie Ayres
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Altivs Obvisivs wrote:
Maybe I've missed it and appologise if I did, but will PoS fuel cost reductions apply only to FW corps/alliances or will it apply to everyone within a system?



Current plan is for it to apply to everyone.



Things I think you need to consider when making your changes:

1. The ability for FW pilots to dock in the opposing factions highsec stations.
2. Restrict nuetrals with a low standings with faction from docking in their stations.
It just seems silly to have FW pilots locked out of stations in systems they dont own but yet allow them to dock in same factions highsec stations, continuing this thought, when considering pirates who shoot FW pilots on a daily basis, why would the faction continue to allow them to dock in stations while they attack their pilots.

CCP really needs to consider risk vs rewards for FW because even after these changes they provide FW pilots with all the risks, while nuetrals and others benefit from the upgrades provided, which now includes POS fuel savings!

Mac
spellbound spirit
#257 - 2012-08-31 20:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: spellbound spirit
Any thoughts on introducing more ties between FW and Empire factions that would actually mean something?
F/x after joining FW I was quite dissapointed that amarr sentry guns were still agressing me in "my own" systems, not to mention amarr navy in highsec ;)
I think it might actually provide at least little reason to participate in FW instead just being a lowsec resident and doing missions with alts in "enemy" militia.

You should also consider letting defenders choose shiptypes they want to use - right now you can takeover systems with just small ships, seems a bit lame to be able to capture system by just blobbing small plexes.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
#258 - 2012-08-31 20:39:11 UTC
Gabriel Darkefyre wrote:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Altivs Obvisivs wrote:
Maybe I've missed it and appologise if I did, but will PoS fuel cost reductions apply only to FW corps/alliances or will it apply to everyone within a system?


I hope it applies to EVERYONE in the system. I want more reasons for people to live and work in lowsec (and move industrial operations there - creating food for pirates) and I want more reasons for people to want to participate in FW.

No, I don't care if my enemy saves fuel cost in my upgraded system. By all mean, come on in and set your POS up. Lol


Personally, I'd hope for it to only apply to Militia Members of the Faction holding Sovereignty. Anyone else should not be affected by the Upgrades.

If someone wants to take advantage of the Rewards of an upgraded FW System, then they should need to sign up to the Militia and be exposed to the Inherent Risks of being in the Militia (Ships and Structures become a legitimate target to the opposing 2 Militias, for one)

And more targets is a good thing, right?

The argument for allowing everybody to use upgrades is a little weak. If getting more targets (err... players) into low sec is a goal with these upgrades, then CCP should simply apply these upgrades to all low sec systems.

But I guess FW is a testbed as well. If it works in FW space, then they can implement some sort of upgrade mechanic in all of low sec ,NPC 0.0, and 0.0 with these upgrade features available as well.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
#259 - 2012-08-31 20:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Mackenzie Ayres wrote:
CCP really needs to consider risk vs rewards for FW because even after these changes they provide FW pilots with all the risks, while nuetrals and others benefit from the upgrades provided, which now includes POS fuel savings!

Mac

The only reason I will put LP into the hub is for increased LP payouts from running plexes in the future. A sort of FW LP multiplier. And, tbh, this might be more than enough for FW players. The upgrades are nearly meaningless to most FW players (except for the cynojammer for corps with caps).
Mackenzie Ayres
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2012-08-31 20:50:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mackenzie Ayres
X Gallentius wrote:
Mackenzie Ayres wrote:
CCP really needs to consider risk vs rewards for FW because even after these changes they provide FW pilots with all the risks, while nuetrals and others benefit from the upgrades provided, which now includes POS fuel savings!

Mac

The only reason I will put LP into the hub is for increased LP payouts from running plexes in the future. A sort of FW LP multiplier. And, tbh, this might be more than enough for FW players. The upgrades are nearly meaningless to most FW players (except for the cynojammer for corps with caps).


Yes, the ability to produce T2 at half the time without the requirement of a POS is of no interest to anyone in FW. With nuetals having access to the beneifts, all manufacturing, copy and material research slots will be full of nuetral jobs!

Mac