These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#141 - 2012-08-23 22:36:19 UTC
I guess I don't really see any "problem" with the tier spikes.

It adds some marketing strategy to the cash out. You need to try to predict what will be needed in the future.

Why is this a problem. The more lp the losing side gains the more they have an interest in achieving tier 5. So if one side is losing for a long time like amarr there will be more and more people who have an interest in helping amarr.

I missed the 30 second tier 4 cashout. I am sure many other amarr have as well. We will hit tier five as long as lp is not given for defensive plexing.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#142 - 2012-08-23 22:49:41 UTC
From Mynnna's blog:
"Problem: No incentive to play defense.
Offensive plexing rewards a player with LP in addition to advancing the attacking faction’s system control and reducing the defender’s warzone control. Defensive plexing denies attackers this ability and slightly reverses their system control, but offers no LP reward to the player, and so no means to fix the damage to their warzone control - their only option for doing so is to go elsewhere and attack. As a result, establishing and more importantly maintaining warzone control is extraordinarily difficult."


The incentive to play defense is holding on to the space and thereby retaining the ability to hit a higher tier. There is clearly an incentive to hold systems.

The above explanation of the problem also ignores the best way to hold your system. Fight off offensive attackers before they capture plexes! Failure to defend your system in pvp results in the sort of punishment that you must then defensive plex for no individual gain. This is actually the best part of inferno and not a problem.

Finally it should be difficult to hang on to your systems. No lp for defensive plexing is the true balance against having a dominant side always win. You are correct that there are too many items in the lp store for the market to be a balance. However no lp for defensive plexing means the losing side can always work its way back up.

The reason amarr are not plexing there way to victory is not because there are insufficient benefits or because there is anything wrong with the tier system. Its because its boring pve and we like to pvp. Make it a pvp system and it is fixed.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#143 - 2012-08-23 23:50:15 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

I see where you're going with this, you're certainly zeroing in one a very important problem, but I really believe the solution is much simpler. Fix the LP store prices at pre-inferno levels for all factions, and modulate the LP rewards for the various activities by a multiplier instead. This instantly eliminates the ability to "spike" the market, and it holds factions accountable for their current progress. Right now a faction can live at Tier 1 all week long, and cash out all their LP in an hour window on the weekend, and go right back to living at Tier 1 all the time. This is pretty broken, and it encourages everyone to chase the tier 5 spike (and discourages them from cashing out UNLESS they hit the tier 5 spike).

The problem people will point out right away with this change is the bleed-out - its way too easy to drain an IHUB quickly of its upgrades, which provides a disincentive to use them for anything other than spiking the market. This is easily fixed by tweaking the rate of the bleed-out. The other obvious problem is "snowballing" of the winning militia, meaning the more LP you earn the easier it is to maintain your upgrades. This is also easily fixable by scaling the amount of LP it takes to upgrade, based on your WZC control.

With a few mathematical adjustments to make it easier to maintain a given Tier level, scaling LP payouts instead of the store pricing will reward factions based on their current performance, and allow all players to cash out their LP freely at any time (helping them stay in the game and supplied with isk and ships) instead of the situation we have now where the losing faction just accumulates their LP, spending little and waiting for a savior to come in and help them achieve the magic system number needed to spike the market to the appropriate level. This change also heavily encourages those that are merely in FW to farm LP and isk (a valid reason to participate) to actually care about the state of the war on a day-to-day basis, which was the original design intent.


I like this alot more then the current system. You addressed many of the issues others have brought up against the above proposal. The one thing I would have liked to hear that I didn't was the current spread on WZC tiers. At tier one Amarr would get 2500 LP per minor? 4375 per medium? 6250 per major? To put it in perspective - I've made 1.8 million Amarr LP since the T4 cashout. I would have an above average cashout should the system change. Then it would be painful and slowgoing to earn more LP. The people who currently complain would continue to do so.

There are also other issues. Level 4 missions give the best LP - and really the missions serve no purpose anymore. And you can get all the LP you want by plexing in Caldari systems even if you own all the Amarr systems. LP is not finite in that sense. You can always get more easily.
Julius Foederatus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2012-08-24 00:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Julius Foederatus
Those who want to get rid of coordinated cash outs should think twice before they keep on that tack. Coordinated cash outs are one of the only things that keeps the people who are actually interested in FW somewhat in control of the source of income. The fact that the bump only lasts a few hours at most means that those not in the loop can't come in and drive down the prices hurting our income.

Remember that the reason we originally had the FW discount was because we had/have the highest ship kill/loss rate of just about anywhere in EVE. The income is necessary to keep people in FW and playing at the level they play now. Every feature that helps some outside entity, that has no real stake in the actual FW conflict, farm more easily, is something that hurts each and every one of us.

The biggest priority needs to be killing the rewards for running from PVP. You should not be able to bore your enemy to death and make ludicrous amounts of isk. Now maybe coordinated cash outs are not how CCP intended things to be, but they certainly aren't really making the FW environment any worse, and I would argue we're better off having them in.

*Edit: Also I think that changing the LP modifiers instead of having the store discounts is a horrible idea. Not only will nothing substantively change for the players in affordability of items, instead it will be even harder to afford to upgrade in the first place. At least the amount of LP required to upgrade a system is constant no matter what the tier, but that idea will make it so the loser has even more burdens placed upon them.

Making it more expensive to upgrade just makes people hoard their LP even more and makes the leech problem worse, not better.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#145 - 2012-08-24 00:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Cearain: In a general sense I agree with you that PvP should be emphasized. Heck, I just spent entirely too much isk on a frigate specialist that I hope to get to PvP on in FW, so I'm definitely there with you. Your suggestion for an alert system is really good (of course a war installation would issue a distress call if attacked). I've also seen a suggestion to move the beacon that you orbit to capture closer to the warpin, and that capture progress on a beacon reset to the neutral state if you leave the complex - either you stand and fight when attacked, or you have to start over. Implement both of those and some other sweeping changes, and I think removing NPCs would be okay.

I take some issue with some of your other points though. Blink

Cearain wrote:
The incentive to play defense is holding on to the space and thereby retaining the ability to hit a higher tier. There is clearly an incentive to hold systems.

The above explanation of the problem also ignores the best way to hold your system. Fight off offensive attackers before they capture plexes! Failure to defend your system in pvp results in the sort of punishment that you must then defensive plex for no individual gain. This is actually the best part of inferno and not a problem.

To the first point - there's incentive to hold systems so that you have things to upgrade for a coordinated cashout. There is zero incentive to actually maintain higher levels of WZC though.

To the second point - the system allows for defense of sorts by defensive plexing, which serves to deny attackers who may show up later use of the plex to attack the system. In other words, its proactive defense - attacking them while they're in the plex is reactive defense. Both should be viable, but the lack of reward, either to the player or in the form of bolstering the upgrade level of the hub, means no one bothers, which contributes to the near impossibility of maintaining high WZC...which in turn makes coordinated cashouts the only way to cash out.

Cearain wrote:
Finally it should be difficult to hang on to your systems. No lp for defensive plexing is the true balance against having a dominant side always win. You are correct that there are too many items in the lp store for the market to be a balance. However no lp for defensive plexing means the losing side can always work its way back up.

As it stands now though, the lack of reward for defensive plexing means that no one does it, which in turn means that coordinated cashouts are the name of the game. It should be difficult, and you should have to work for it, but I do think there need to be other options for defending a system beyond "kill the attackers".

Cearain wrote:
The reason amarr are not plexing there way to victory is not because there are insufficient benefits or because there is anything wrong with the tier system. Its because its boring pve and we like to pvp. Make it a pvp system and it is fixed.


"Make it a pvp system" is an interesting line in the context because you're talking about Amarrian lack of progress. To progress they'd have to attack - are you saying that attacking systems should be based on PvP too? Because, that won't work - any method of capturing systems that is based on PvP can be defeated by simply not providing the PvP. For better or for worse it has to be a PvE solution - you press the button, and if the defenders avoid PvP, they lose the system.

Julius Foederatus wrote:
Those who want to get rid of coordinated cash outs should think twice before they keep on that tack. Coordinated cash outs are one of the only things that keeps the people who are actually interested in FW somewhat in control of the source of income. The fact that the bump only lasts a few hours at most means that those not in the loop can't come in and drive down the prices hurting our income.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If the balancing system worked as intended, with prices fluctuating as they should in response to control (look at Amarr Navy Slicers for an example), yes, prices items from a dominant faction would drop. However, they're not going to go to zero value. Just look at L4 mission stores - they're just about as saturated as you can get, and you can still fetch ~500 isk/LP for implants (which are very easy to sell, thus the popularity), more for other items such as mods. With it's relatively lower population, I think that FW items could quite possibly stay at a higher level still, especially with a diverse store to choose from. So, a player willing to stay with his faction could still earn a healthy income to keep himself in ships - especially since frigates and destroyers are overwhelmingly the popular choice, even amongst those actually playing and not merely farming. Meanwhile, someone who feels a bit more mercenary can swap sides, fight to get them winning, and cash in on the (temporary) payday if he succeeds while their items are still high in price. For what it's worth, this was CCP's original intent with the system, which is part of why I'm trying to restore it.


Julius Foederatus wrote:
The biggest priority needs to be killing the rewards for running from PVP.

I'm not sure about BIGGEST priority but I do agree - see the ideas people sent me at the start of the post for that.

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

fofofo

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#146 - 2012-08-24 01:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
corestwo wrote:
It occurs to me - your explanation makes sense if you see the coordinated cashouts as a problem, but have no issue with one faction being entirely dominant. I don't suppose this is the case, is it? If so, how is that interesting?


Ahhh great question. You're not misunderstanding anything necessarily, you correctly point out that this indeed removes one of the financial incentives for enlisting in the losing miltia. This would be a pretty critical flaw if financial incentives were the current primary motivation for enlistment, or if those that enlist in the winning militia for financial purposes played a major part in the success or failure of the militia militarily. This doesn't appear to be the case in practice, however.

Since Inferno, we've witnessed several large outside entities enlist in the Amarr militia, and enlist explicitly for the increased number of war targets for PvP purposes. These groups are joining for the fun of it, a target rich environment to feed their PvP appetites. This also continues a long-term historical tradition that pre-dates Inferno where players would flip factions specifically to have the most amount of flashy ships around them at any given time. It doesn't make any sense financially nowadays, and often these groups that join the underdog don't appear to be all that preoccupied with warzone control, either. In fact, even veteran groups like Imperial Outlaws remain more interested in the PvP than the financial reward, and have been willing to endure the most brutal of Inferno's punishments for the sake of feeding their hunger for killmails and bragging rights (both of which they've earned).

Fweddit in particular is a prime example - their leadership has been outspoken about the fact that they were there for killmails and entertainment, not to fill their coffers. Their criticism of the Faction Warfare system has been rooted much more in the lack of entertaining game play especially at the plexing level, where they expected to find much PvP but discovered a boring PvE grind instead. Members have Fweddit have been open about the fact that they don't enjoy plexing much, certainly not enough to put the necessary grind time to make a substantial difference in WZC. They'd simply rather be pewing instead. And that's perfect! This is exactly who we want to attract to Faction Warfare, players that are enthusiastic about PvP for the sake of PvP. I wholeheartedly believe that if CCP fixes Faction Warfare's core gameplay mechanic to provide the PvP quality that players should expect from such a system, that this motivation for joining the underdog will easily eclipse any difference in immediate financial reward.

There is simply no debate that a system that rewards winners and punishes losers financially will encourage profit-seekers to enlist in whichever militia is winning at the time. This sounds in theory like it would lead to "snowballing" and an unbreakable power monopoly over time. But the numbers show something a little different. As CCP disclosed at the summit, and as publicly available data shows, the "army of plexing alts" that have joined Minmatar haven't really translated into a noticeable increase in plexing behavior. The Amarr have been able to put forth as much warzone activity in terms of kills and victory points, despite the on-paper size advantage that the Minmatar have.

TL,DR:

Cearain wrote:
The reason amarr are not plexing there way to victory is not because there are insufficient benefits


Cearain wrote:
Its because its boring pve and we like to pvp. Make it a pvp system and it is fixed.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#147 - 2012-08-24 01:06:31 UTC
ugh factionwarfare will never be what i want it to be. :P

I want it to be a system that requires ownership of all surrounded systems before it can be cliamed. I want combat to be focused into the border systems. That is where every factional warfare mission should spawn. Any system that is not conected to nothing but friendly owned systems should be considered a battleground. If a sysem is surrounded by all owned system then FW missions would not spawn there.

But CCP will never listen to this direction of focused pvp gameplay, designing FW to work more like a well design board game.

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

Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#148 - 2012-08-24 01:11:19 UTC
What is FW supposed to be though? Is it a stand-alone system to it's own right? Or is it designed to be nothing more then a breeding ground for null-sec and wormhole pvp'ers? If it's the latter then working as intended. Alot of the Amarr will move on to other things. With few targets and no objectives once all of Amarr low-sec is conquered I expect the same of many Minmatar pilots as well. Alot of us were really hoping for more though.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#149 - 2012-08-24 01:31:22 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
words

As we clearly have very differing visions I don't see the need to debate the merits of our respective solutions, so I'll bow out on that front. However, I do want to ask - I also don't see how your system, on its own, would do anything to mitigate permanent Minmatar dominance as a farmfest. Sure, people would join Amarr for the notional ~gudfites~, but without some serious revamps (and honestly, probably even with them), people would still be able to make grotesque amounts of isk without risking very much to do it. Let's face it - chasing down frigate farmers that run at the first sign of trouble gets boring, even if the beacon is closer and the capture point resets if they leave and so on. It'd probably get old, farming would flourish. The way that you eliminate coordinated cashouts makes the farming even easier. Do you consider that, the idea of being able to make dozens or hundreds of millions of isk an hour, forever, in a frigate, to be okay?

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
There is simply no debate that a system that rewards winners and punishes losers financially will encourage profit-seekers to enlist in whichever militia is winning at the time. This sounds in theory like it would lead to "snowballing" and an unbreakable power monopoly over time. But the numbers show something a little different. As CCP disclosed at the summit, and as publicly available data shows, the "army of plexing alts" that have joined Minmatar haven't really translated into a noticeable increase in plexing behavior. The Amarr have been able to put forth as much warzone activity in terms of kills and victory points, despite the on-paper size advantage that the Minmatar have.


Note on the VP numbers - as the author there notes, VP are gained by capturing plexes. The fact that Minmatar WZC drops very rapidly proves that someone on the Amarrian side is plexing to some end. Maybe it's die hards who are trying to genuinely participate and win, but are doing **** all in the face of the farming engine. Maybe it's amarr alts of minmatar farmers flipping systems back over to amarrian control so they can farm them - defensive plexing offers no reward, after all. Regardless, it's plainly obvious from warzone control that it doesn't matter, and that Minmatar are the chosen to win. The equal VP is pretty meaningless.

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

fofofo

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#150 - 2012-08-24 08:20:40 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I like this alot more then the current system. You addressed many of the issues others have brought up against the above proposal. The one thing I would have liked to hear that I didn't was the current spread on WZC tiers. At tier one Amarr would get 2500 LP per minor? 4375 per medium? 6250 per major? To put it in perspective - I've made 1.8 million Amarr LP since the T4 cashout. I would have an above average cashout should the system change. Then it would be painful and slowgoing to earn more LP. The people who currently complain would continue to do so.

There are also other issues. Level 4 missions give the best LP - and really the missions serve no purpose anymore. And you can get all the LP you want by plexing in Caldari systems even if you own all the Amarr systems. LP is not finite in that sense. You can always get more easily.


Excellent points, both. I should clarify than when I first outlined the proposal regarding fixed prices and modulated payouts, this was never intended to be "the" fix for Faction Warfare, merely one of about a dozen that need to be nailed on the head this Winter in order for the feature to reach a healthy, vibrant state that will entertain for years to come. I was just responding to Corestwo's idea with my own version of how to address his specific concern.

You correctly address another issue here - the degree of scaling itself. This was a factor I warned CCP was too excessive going into Inferno, but at the time CCP was feeling adventurous and wanted to err on the side of driving conflict, than err on the side of caution and have the rewards matter too little to really kickstart the race. They said at the time they'd monitor this spread and adjust if needed, and I still agree that it needs to be scaled back a bit. Primarily on the low end - I think its absurd that when you start losing badly enough, its more profitable to go run highsec missions instead. I pushed CCP to implement a sustainable income for all Faction Warfare pilots, not just the winners, and the current rewards at Tier 1 are deeply frustrating. I'm also open to dialing back the 4x multiplier on the winning end too, just not so much that it fails to properly motivate a faction to continue fighting every single day to reach that high mark.

As for missions - I'm not of the mindset that these need to be jettisoned at this point like some vestigial organ. It's actually because missions don't contribute to warzone control and the PvP war that they're in less need of attention at this time. I'll be perfectly honest - I'm in no rush to see missions balanced, overhauled, eliminated, or integrated into the sovereignty system until all of the core issues affecting how our war is fought are addressed first. CCP simply must address the myriad of plexing-related issues and repair the core PvP gameplay before we mess with something that isn't necessarily interfering with the nature of the war, and that is my recommendation to the developers at this point and time.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#151 - 2012-08-24 08:42:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Those who want to get rid of coordinated cash outs should think twice before they keep on that tack. Coordinated cash outs are one of the only things that keeps the people who are actually interested in FW somewhat in control of the source of income. The fact that the bump only lasts a few hours at most means that those not in the loop can't come in and drive down the prices hurting our income.


I understand your concern here, but I'd argue that the coordinated cash outs are actually causing dedicated Faction Warfare pilots to suffer the worst of the market crashes, but sending them all to the market at the same time to collect on their LP gains. There isn't much question that having hundreds of pilots try to sell their Fleet Stabbers in bulk during a 24 hour period isn't causing many to settle for lower buy order prices than they might otherwise face on a day-to-day basis if the sales were distributed much more evenly. Having all of us career FW pilots go to the market on the same day pits us directly against each other.

But this is all assuming, of course, that the only people cashing out during coordinated spikes are the dedicated Faction Warfare pilots who are in the loop at the time. Whenever the Minmatar begin working up a level 5 spike, there's plenty of warning in general militia chat for everyone not involved in the core PvP war to still get in on the action, and if you really run the numbers, its not unfeasible that a single individual can bankroll his own Tier 5 spike if he dedicates a weekend earning the few million LP necessary to pull this off. Again, the spiking encourages the most intense market competition and doesn't pit us against the casual farmer near as much as it pits us against the other pilots who are out fighting the real war. I predict that a smooth supply to the market over time would result in higher average sales prices than pilots are currently achieving during the Tier 5 spike stampedes. Economists, prove me wrong and I'll happily concede this last point.

Julius Foederatus wrote:
The biggest priority needs to be killing the rewards for running from PVP. You should not be able to bore your enemy to death and make ludicrous amounts of isk.


Order of priority aside, this is another critical issue in my opinion, and needs to be addressed in conjunction with other core feature fixes. Right now plexing is a giant game that is optimized for evasion. The fact that only one party in a plex conflict gets paid for their work encourages simultaneous unopposed farming in seperate locations rather than adversarial combat, and its no surprise that this is what we're seeing in practice. The fact that you can just run from one plex to the next and continually make progress on a system takeover also contributes to plexing being an evasion game. This second issue is something we can certainly address pretty easily - for example I'd love to see a steady timer rollback when no players occupy a plex, so that pilots that simply want to run away to a new plex (sometimes circling back to one they've already made progress in) can't use this evasion method to rack up any meaningful progress. By forcing a pilot to stick around and hold their ground if they want to win victory points, they'll be that much more likely to fit themselves for PvP rather than to just slap on the traditional 10mn AB and warp stabs.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#152 - 2012-08-24 08:58:26 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
ugh factionwarfare will never be what i want it to be. :P

I want it to be a system that requires ownership of all surrounded systems before it can be cliamed. I want combat to be focused into the border systems. That is where every factional warfare mission should spawn. Any system that is not conected to nothing but friendly owned systems should be considered a battleground. If a sysem is surrounded by all owned system then FW missions would not spawn there.

But CCP will never listen to this direction of focused pvp gameplay, designing FW to work more like a well design board game.


Ah, chin up. Big smile If there's one thing I've learned so far, its that asking for what you want to see and taking the time to argue its merit delivers far better results than spending any time lamenting that CCP may not care.

But yes, mission spawning is one of those wonky outdated elements to the Faction Warfare system that could be made much more interesting and dynamic. They were always designed to take place in enemy space, which would be even riskier now that we have station lockout. But without the spawn mechanics fixed or even the NPC content inside overhauled and balanced, they really don't do much to encourage PvP and kind of sit sadly on the sidelines. Like I said earlier, I'd love to look into ways to address this but for the time being I'm making sure I have absolute commitments from the developers to overhaul our core plexing game and address all the major problems in the reward system before we move on to missions.

I've heard nothing suggesting that CCP would refuse listen to this mission treatment though, they agreed at the summit these were no longer working as intended anymore. The issue isn't the willingness on CCP's part to revamp missions, its simply an issue of prioritizing development resources at this point. So keep sharing if you feel strongly about it, we're all interested in hearing everyone's ideas.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#153 - 2012-08-24 11:27:57 UTC
corestwo wrote:
without some serious revamps (and honestly, probably even with them), people would still be able to make grotesque amounts of isk without risking very much to do it. Let's face it - chasing down frigate farmers that run at the first sign of trouble gets boring, even if the beacon is closer and the capture point resets if they leave and so on. It'd probably get old, farming would flourish. The way that you eliminate coordinated cashouts makes the farming even easier.


Yeah, I simply don't share your fear that CCP isn't going to do the "serious revamps" to control the expansion of low-risk isk farming and the predominance of speed-tanking frigs. These are precisely the kind of problems they've been seeking out feedback on, and putting together some concrete plans to address. It's great stuff for the community to continue discussing, because CCP has said all along a plex content overhaul would included in Winter expansion, and I've seen them continue to make progress on this commitment first-hand. There's no reason to assume at this point that any element of the Faction Warfare system will be remaining static, especially the core risk / reward issues.

There's no magic bullet here - we have to simultaneous tackle the payout scheme, the plexing content, the incentives for PvP, and the way that upgraded Faction Warfare systems shape the low sec landscape through their bonuses and effects. It's all necessary, and all interconnected, and all has to happen at the same time for maximum effectiveness. CCP will be finished with their initial release planning fairly soon here, and should be able to post up their initial stab at tackling these various problems so players can begin finessing the details. Note that release planning won't dictate the final specific solutions to be implemented, but it will at least help players understand which elements of this feature will be going under the knife and the degree to which they're likely to change.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#154 - 2012-08-24 11:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
corestwo wrote:
Note on the VP numbers - as the author there notes, VP are gained by capturing plexes. The fact that Minmatar WZC drops very rapidly proves that someone on the Amarrian side is plexing to some end. Maybe it's die hards who are trying to genuinely participate and win, but are doing **** all in the face of the farming engine. Maybe it's amarr alts of minmatar farmers flipping systems back over to amarrian control so they can farm them - defensive plexing offers no reward, after all. Regardless, it's plainly obvious from warzone control that it doesn't matter, and that Minmatar are the chosen to win. The equal VP is pretty meaningless.


So we have a situation where two militias are putting forth equal levels of activity, and making equal headway simultaneously. The fact that there's a numbers disparity indicates that the Minmatar are simply out plexing less individually than the Amarr, and that plexing is infrequent enough amongst the "farming engine" to cause a rise in total activity levels that correlates with the influx of new members. An alternative explanation for this phenomena (and the one I know to actually be the case from first-hand experience) is that as alt- plex-farmers pour into the Minmatar militia, the core PvP crowd spends less time plexing knowing that they can mission for LP and spend less time on PvE and more time on PvP, without losing their Tier advantage because they're not out offensively plexing as much. Sure, more have signed up to plex because of the lucrative LP, but they're not actually tipping the scales in the war, they're just sparing the veterans the dirty work.

This leaves us with the question, why the Minmatar? This is of course is one of the most hotly debated question around, every player's answer (especially those involved in the war) is steeped in bias and bravado. But there's a few things that can be agreed on without having to argue about who fought the better war. The first, is that the Minmatar took all their space pre-inferno. It shouldn't be all that suprising that if you have two militias making equal but opposing progress in the war, and one started out ahead of the other, it will remain ahead of the other. The ability of the Amarr miltiia as a whole to keep pace with "the machine" would suggest that once they achieved the number of systems they needed to achieve tier 4, they'd maintain that number of systems, just as the Minmatar did for their first few months. Indeed, it is quite likely that if groups like Fweddit, Moar Tears, and Nulli Secunda hadn't left the militia suddenly, the Amarr would be continuing to enjoy a period of prosperity rather than suffering only a brief moment of relief.

And why did these groups leave when they did? Pinky Feldman reflects on the departure of Moar Tears explaining that it was once again the quality of the PvP that was the driving factor, not merely the lack of isk. Moar Tears and Fweddit both proved that isk advantage wasn't necessary to be able to take space, they were instrumental in seizing Minmatar strongholds such as Kourmonen using creative, low cost fleet doctrines that often easily outnumbered the Minmatar PvP crowd in a given time zone. Pinky has been outspoken about the fact that if the PvP was better, and plexing was fun, Moar Tears and Fweddit would have stuck it out and been an even more integral part of the Amarr recovery process.

I continue to maintain that in Faction Warfare, PvP is king, not the isk, even post-Inferno. The healthy prescription for Faction Warfare's future isn't to just fix up the isk metagame so that the isk metagame works as CCP originally intended, it's to give prospective Faction Warfare players an even stronger motivation to enlist and participate than profit. ~Gudfites~ are not "notional", they are integral to the success of Faction Warfare reform.

o7

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#155 - 2012-08-24 11:51:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
corestwo wrote:
Cearain: In a general sense I agree with you that PvP should be emphasized. Heck, I just spent entirely too much isk on a frigate specialist that I hope to get to PvP on in FW, so I'm definitely there with you. Your suggestion for an alert system is really good (of course a war installation would issue a distress call if attacked). I've also seen a suggestion to move the beacon that you orbit to capture closer to the warpin, and that capture progress on a beacon reset to the neutral state if you leave the complex - either you stand and fight when attacked, or you have to start over. Implement both of those and some other sweeping changes, and I think removing NPCs would be okay.

I take some issue with some of your other points though. Blink

Cearain wrote:
The incentive to play defense is holding on to the space and thereby retaining the ability to hit a higher tier. There is clearly an incentive to hold systems.

The above explanation of the problem also ignores the best way to hold your system. Fight off offensive attackers before they capture plexes! Failure to defend your system in pvp results in the sort of punishment that you must then defensive plex for no individual gain. This is actually the best part of inferno and not a problem.

To the first point - there's incentive to hold systems so that you have things to upgrade for a coordinated cashout. There is zero incentive to actually maintain higher levels of WZC though..


That is correct. But I don't really see that as a problem. The warzone will start to take much longer to flip from one side to the next once ccp eliminates the whole farmville mechanic. That will be eliminated when they do the timer countdown and the start letting militias know where plexes are attacked. I think it will take about about 4 months for amarr to get to tier 5 from the time minmatar cashout out at tier 5. Perhaps longer.

This will give the appearance of a campaign. Someone might want to join fw on the losing side and help them through a campaign cash out and then do something else in eve. Or like me they may want to stick around and just keep fighting for that faction and try to stall the other side from hitting tier 5.

Yes I did say "stall" the other side from hitting tier 5. Because I think its important that all sides be able to eventually hit this. because if one can't we will just have everyone joining the sides that can.

I think for war that is like fw this is really the best we can hope for. The fortunes maiking big swings from one side to the other over time.

Hans's proposal where they give more lp instead of making things cheaper, I think will just make the warzone stagnant. Very little will change over or a month and the war will just becomes so entrenched people wont care much.



corestwo wrote:


To the second point - the system allows for defense of sorts by defensive plexing, which serves to deny attackers who may show up later use of the plex to attack the system. In other words, its proactive defense - attacking them while they're in the plex is reactive defense. Both should be viable, but the lack of reward, either to the player or in the form of bolstering the upgrade level of the hub, means no one bothers, which contributes to the near impossibility of maintaining high WZC...which in turn makes coordinated cashouts the only way to cash out..[/quote.



The reactive defense always involves pvp so that should be the one strongly favored. The proactive one will often involve pve so it should not be favored over the other.

But again the main reason for keeping it so that there is no lp for defensive plexing is because this is the only tru balancing mechanic that gives someone a reason to fight for the losing side. Because the side with fewer systems held and a lower tier will be able to tell new pilots that they will be able to make lp. This will discourage people from piling on the winning team because they will have fewer opportunities to make lp.

I really can't emphasize how important this is. If anything I think the defending side should have to pay lp to make the defensive plex count toward decontesting the system.

In the blog you linked there are some other good ideas to help balance such as more unique items and buffing the current unique items. I think this is good and should be done. But really the market won't be enough. At low tiers pirate faction ships are cheaper than the navy faction ships. There needs to be a way that narurally allows the side with fewer systems to start to climb back in the game. No lp for defensive plexing is a great way to do it. its actually the only thning that allows it now.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#156 - 2012-08-24 11:58:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
corestwo wrote:
It occurs to me - your explanation makes sense if you see the coordinated cashouts as a problem, but have no issue with one faction being entirely dominant. I don't suppose this is the case, is it? If so, how is that interesting?


Ahhh great question. You're not misunderstanding anything necessarily, you correctly point out that this indeed removes one of the financial incentives for enlisting in the losing miltia. This would be a pretty critical flaw if financial incentives were the current primary motivation for enlistment, or if those that enlist in the winning militia for financial purposes played a major part in the success or failure of the militia militarily. This doesn't appear to be the case in practice, however.

Since Inferno, we've witnessed several large outside entities enlist in the Amarr militia, and enlist explicitly for the increased number of war targets for PvP purposes. These groups are joining for the fun of it, a target rich environment to feed their PvP appetites. ....
[/quote]


Hans there have only been 3 that claimed that so far. Fweddit, moar tears, and agony. Agony just joined and its hard to say what they will make of it. Fweddit and moar tears left for the more lucrative calrdari militia. So one is unclear and 2 others have already proven this notion that people will stay with the losing faction for pvp wrong.

The idea that looking for pvp will be a factor that will make people join the losing side won't work.


BTW this doesn't even include the other major amarr corps that left amarr milita once inferno was announced. PiE, Locus industries, the entire 7th fleet alliance. How many major players did minmatar lose?

In practice people leave the losing faction in droves. In word they may not, but in fact that they do.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#157 - 2012-08-24 12:04:03 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Those who want to get rid of coordinated cash outs should think twice before they keep on that tack. Coordinated cash outs are one of the only things that keeps the people who are actually interested in FW somewhat in control of the source of income. The fact that the bump only lasts a few hours at most means that those not in the loop can't come in and drive down the prices hurting our income.


I understand your concern here, but I'd argue that the coordinated cash outs are actually causing dedicated Faction Warfare pilots to suffer the worst of the market crashes, but sending them all to the market at the same time to collect on their LP gains. There isn't much question that having hundreds of pilots try to sell their Fleet Stabbers in bulk during a 24 hour period isn't causing many to settle for lower buy order prices than they might otherwise face on a day-to-day basis if the sales were distributed much more evenly. Having all of us career FW pilots go to the market on the same day pits us directly against each other..



Hans if you make it a pvp mechanic all the people who are cashing out will be dedicated faction war pilots for that campaing. There won't be any farmers screwing up the market. People who earn lp in plexes will all be pvpers who helped actually fight the war.

Tthe only exception to this will be the mission runners. And I think level 4 missions could stand a bit of a nerf.

Now the career fw pilots will have better understand of the market for the main faction war goods so they will still be able to make the most bank from these cashouts.

When people are cashing out all the time, knowledge doesn't really help. Just look at the current prices and buy whats best. It dumbs this aspect of fw down. Dumbing it down will hurt the career fw players more than the players new to fw.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#158 - 2012-08-24 12:09:40 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

There is simply no debate that a system that rewards winners and punishes losers financially will encourage profit-seekers to enlist in whichever militia is winning at the time. This sounds in theory like it would lead to "snowballing" and an unbreakable power monopoly over time. But the numbers show something a little different. As CCP disclosed at the summit, and as publicly available data shows, the "army of plexing alts" that have joined Minmatar haven't really translated into a noticeable increase in plexing behavior. The Amarr have been able to put forth as much warzone activity in terms of kills and victory points, despite the on-paper size advantage that the Minmatar have.


Hans I can't believe you are just taking her conclusions wholesale. Do you ever read the comments to these blogs? Here is the comment I posted:

"If the Minmatar plex so much more than the Amarr, as many people think, how can they have made so much less Victory Points than the Amarr since Inferno?"

1) At the beginning Amarr was spending allot of time defensive plexing instead of offensive plexing. Both give vp, but offensive plexing is smarter. So yes I agree at first a considerable problem was that amarr did not work with a good strategy. It is now pretty well established, that there should be a preference for offensive plexing. I think its pretty clear that now with the station lock outs its best if the smaller militia simply bases out high sec or one of the 3 low sec entry points. That way you are not saddled with defensive plexing.

2) I am not sure if minmatar get vp for plexing in caldari space. (althoguh I haven't confirmed this myself) This is the big hole in your analysis. When Minmatar started out inferno at tier 5 the majority of minmatar alts went to caldari space to plex. Its only after amarr flipped metro that the farm horde came to our front in full force.

3) The farmers also tend to major and medium plexes. They offer about 30-50% more lp per minute. The pvpers tend to do minor plexes and occasionally medium plexes because the rats in the major plexes are way too much for the majority of pvp fits to withstand. (at least for amarr) However, I am pretty sure, the minors offer just as much vp as the majors. So I think it would be fair to say that the side that is doing more minor plexes is not really farming fw - but doing fw. The mediums is sort of a mix but I think heavilly favors farming. But the side that is doing majors - is likely farming more. I really don't know which militia did what.

4) Nulli kept farming vulnerable systems. I think doing that still adds vp but it doesn't really help your militia. So this might explain how the amarr surpassed minmatar in vp. I think they joined on July 28th. Did amarr have more vp before then?


But this is the real bottom line:


"Unfortunately, those who widely (and emphatically) make claim to these numbers, do not provide anything in the way of proof –either through a thought-out argument or hard numbers. In fact, while the entire idea makes a lot of sense, it is essentially based on speculation and personal perception alone."

Yep lets get teh numbers from CCP diagoras.

Post inferno
1)how many of each type of plex was run and in what ship types for each of the militias?
2) How many plexes involved an explosion or even an aggression from a wt or neutral before it was captured?


-Cearain

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#159 - 2012-08-24 12:16:28 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Cearain: In a general sense I agree with you that PvP should be emphasized. Heck, I just spent entirely too much isk on a frigate specialist that I hope to get to PvP on in FW, so I'm definitely there with you. Your suggestion for an alert system is really good (of course a war installation would issue a distress call if attacked). I've also seen a suggestion to move the beacon that you orbit to capture closer to the warpin, and that capture progress on a beacon reset to the neutral state if you leave the complex - either you stand and fight when attacked, or you have to start over. Implement both of those and some other sweeping changes, and I think removing NPCs would be okay.

I take some issue with some of your other points though. Blink....

"Make it a pvp system" is an interesting line in the context because you're talking about Amarrian lack of progress. To progress they'd have to attack - are you saying that attacking systems should be based on PvP too? Because, that won't work - any method of capturing systems that is based on PvP can be defeated by simply not providing the PvP. For better or for worse it has to be a PvE solution - you press the button, and if the defenders avoid PvP, they lose the system..



I think if they did what is suggested in the first paragraph they would make it a pvp system.

They wouldn't need to make the beacon reset to zero on warp outs just count back down a few minutes or to zero so the people who constantly run will make no progress. They will soon realize that this is not going to be profitable. Thus the only people who are left plexing will be those willing to fight for plexes. And fights there would be. Huge numbers of fights.

The rewards wouldn't need to be tied directly to pvp deaths. It would just happen due to the other mechanics such as players immediately knowing which plexes are under attack and the timer counting down if you get chased out.


They also need to adjust the damage the rats do in the larger plexes because they do way too much damage know for anyone but a fleet to be sticking around and fighting in those.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#160 - 2012-08-24 12:22:22 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Hans I can't believe you are just taking her conclusions wholesale. Do you ever read the comments to these blogs?


Yes, I do. I had read this already.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary