These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare: Moving Forward.....

First post First post
Author
Simyaldee
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#281 - 2011-10-26 01:04:49 UTC

My views on the fixes go like this:

Simple things able to be put in for the Winter Patch that most of us would like:
1. Fix the simple bugs like, -5 Repping, Being able to see Allied Militia, Post Downtime Plex Spawning, Mission Balancing, Empire Standing once you leave Militia etc.
2. Add a simple Graphical Interface that gives Intel for just how contested a system is and what plexes are open etc.
3. Add a Simple thing such as Station(Specifically Station) Guns to fire on opposing Militia when a System is uncontested(when it is contested guns do not fire)or half contested or a way that it will be the most balanced.
4. Decrease Rewards for Missions and increase their difficulty "SLIGHTLY" while instituting rewards towards Plexing and making PvP kills slightly more substantial so theres more PvP and less Carebearing.
5. Create more LP Items or decrease the ISK/LP cost for creating certain items so that things besides Navy Scorps become more profitable and the market will become more balanced.

Things that might be applicable for future patches:
1. Changing the Sov Mechanic in more significant ways
2. Changing the Way LP is earned
3. Changing the way FW effects High,Low and Null Sec
4. Provide an easier way for players new to militia to find Corporations in milita and vice versa.

Things that we will most likely get from CCP
1. Fix the bugs(From my basic understanding of coding this should take them all of a week at the MOST.)
2. Change Missioning in some way.

Now for me describing things I don't want. Alliances SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN FACTION WARFARE. Think about it for two seconds. Yes we wish they could join and we could get more numbers and thus more fights(More Likely Blobs but I'm going on what the people who support this idea seem to be thinking).

What happens then? Instead of Alliances hanging out in 0.0 protecting their Miners and Missioning Hubs and Tech moons and fighting over sov, they will hang out in Low Sec protecting their missioning alts and plexing hubs and fight over Occupancy changes. Low Sec will come to appear more like 0.0 and that is not what, I at least, want to happen. Yes they do drop us on occasion(with the exception of PL who either moved out of 0.0 or got kicked out, not sure which and therefore have started dropping us a lot) but the fact is they do not LIVE here they have no reason besides lulz to come and blob us and so they do not do it a whole lot (From my own perspective not sure how things are on the Minnie-Amarr front). I currently have little fear in most of my gangs that I will be out blobbed by a 0.0 alliance unsure if the case is different in Amarr-Minnie space but *shrug*.

And being able to enter a plex is not an entirely valid way of balancing out a blob. A number blob is almost the exact same thing as a Ship Size or Shiny blob. The Caldari and Gallente side of FW consists mainly of roaming gangs(Outside of Plexes) imo so I'm not sure how different this is from your view Hans. Small Corps will have to join an alliance, die or leave faction warfare. You either deal with the blob fests that are sure to come. Or weather it out like a lot of FW pilots have since the beginning and wait for a change and grab the tiniest tidbit of small gang PvP that they can get. Or you leave because you can't handle it.

I love being able to take a 20 man BC gang out and expect a reasonable fight with an equally sized and skilled opponent just for the sake of fighting. I love the small corp mentality that FW breeds and the fact that the intake of players brand new to EVE and players who are 5 EVE years old is happening in Militia.(I am one of the recruited noobs btw). With the inclusion of Alliance participation in FW small scale PvP as (I at least) know it will either become so sparse as to be insignifiant or die altogether. Keep the 0.0 blob Alliances out in Null sec fighting over ways to make isk. I want to be able to actually have my decisions and skills matter while in a fleet.

For the removing of NPC's from Highsec... I have seen a lone harbinger in a 0.5 system tank the Navy with absolute ease making it easier for people to have fights in highsec is not the way to go. Its already happening(We killed the Harbi btw).

For removing missions altogether or forcing PvP in them. I can expect that the majority of people who support this measure do not use FW missions as their primary source of income. When the likes of me and Hans are out missioning we do not WANT to PvP we want to carebear, whether for personal or monetary reasons. If we wanted to PvP we would be in a PvP ship looking for a fight. Balance the missions so that all FW missions are of equal quality and difficulty. Make it so that a Level 4 can not be solo'd in a bomber without extreme difficulty(Thus forcing people to fly Cloaky Drakes, Tengus, and Cerbs for missioning runs at least in Caldari FW anyway). Increase the LP Reward for PvP Kills by a decent amount, and provide a reward for plexing to reduce the need for Carebearing and increasing the reward of PvP.

If you take away FW missions you will see a loss in PvP because while I could have earned enough money to buy a Drake in an hour with FW missions I'm in high sec or a wormhole carebearing it up so that I can PvP. One thing I haven't seen all to much is a suggestion for a direct link between PvP and your agent standings. Missions still affect your standing up to a point. But lets say the Standings degrade over time. The Higher the standing the faster it degrades. So that without PvP you can't comfortably do Level 3's with a whoring alt. Do this by providing a more Significant change in standings when you blow up an enemy FW person or an enemy FW person blows up you. Distribute standing and fleet accordingly. The specifics of this are myriad and complex but you get the picture.

Hope CCP listens for once.
Thanks for Reading.
See you Starside
~Simyaldee

Member, Fighter and FC for The Great Harmon Institute of Technology 

Trillian Stargazer
Perkone
Caldari State
#282 - 2011-10-26 01:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Trillian Stargazer
Johnny Punisher wrote:


2) no standing loss in remote repping friendly militia member who is pirate/gcc



Sec Stat is dictated by Concord thats why you get one.

Logistics ships should gain aggression when RR.
Johnny Punisher
Malakim Zealots
Angel Cartel
#283 - 2011-10-26 12:42:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Punisher
Trillian Stargazer wrote:


Sec Stat is dictated by Concord thats why you get one.

Logistics ships should gain aggression when RR.


You didn't understand. Standings have nothing to do with sec status/concord.

And I agree that you should still lose sec status / gain gcc by RR'ing outlaws/gcc's (like it is at the moment). I also agree that you should gain aggression if you use any remote aiding module on someone (RR/tracking/remote sebos etc).
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#284 - 2011-10-26 12:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Yeah what Johnny said. You lose FACTION standings with the RR bug.
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2011-10-26 17:17:05 UTC
Simple change (which has been mentioned already) which just seems common sense.

Militia owned stations:
shoot at opposing militia ships (definitely)
deny docking rights to opposing militia ships (possibly)

It will provide a useful test without the possibility of breaking everything in one go.
Run that for a while, review, and maybe expand the idea later.

Other ideas:

Tie system occupancy to ownership of the stations.
For example, Minnies claim occupancy of a system, some (but not all) stations change ownership to Tribal Liberation Force and a variety of other Minmatar npc corps.
This will give some tangible reason to occupy a system without (hopefully) completely ruining the balance.

High sec NPC navies should remain pretty much as they are. You can still go raiding in the opposing militia's high sec areas if you want to now, so I don't see much reason for taking them away. It just makes sense that the 'real' military will try to control their own high sec space. Several other good reasons for keeping them have been raised already.
If you really want to try it out, start by reducing the strength of the NPCs rather than removing them completely.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#286 - 2011-10-26 17:58:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
Axl Borlara wrote:
Simple change (which has been mentioned already) which just seems common sense.

Militia owned stations:
shoot at opposing militia ships (definitely)
deny docking rights to opposing militia ships (possibly)

It will provide a useful test without the possibility of breaking everything in one go.
Run that for a while, review, and maybe expand the idea later.

Other ideas:

Tie system occupancy to ownership of the stations.
For example, Minnies claim occupancy of a system, some (but not all) stations change ownership to Tribal Liberation Force and a variety of other Minmatar npc corps.
This will give some tangible reason to occupy a system without (hopefully) completely ruining the balance.

High sec NPC navies should remain pretty much as they are. You can still go raiding in the opposing militia's high sec areas if you want to now, so I don't see much reason for taking them away. It just makes sense that the 'real' military will try to control their own high sec space. Several other good reasons for keeping them have been raised already.
If you really want to try it out, start by reducing the strength of the NPCs rather than removing them completely.


As alternative to denying docking rights completely you should consider just limiting the things hostile entities can do while docked. At the minimum denying hostile entities access to station services should be considered and it could go as far as denying access to items and ships completely in the occupied systems or just prevent them from restocking their assets there. Point being it doesn't have to be all or nothing with docking rights and it might even be preferable and more interesting, if you use less blunt instruments to bring more meaning to occupancy.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
#287 - 2011-10-26 17:59:36 UTC
Docking rights to hostile stations should be removed right away tbfh, there is no logical reason why you would accept that ppl you are war with to dock in your stations

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#288 - 2011-10-26 18:01:42 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:
Axl Borlara wrote:
Simple change (which has been mentioned already) which just seems common sense.

Militia owned stations:
shoot at opposing militia ships (definitely)
deny docking rights to opposing militia ships (possibly)

It will provide a useful test without the possibility of breaking everything in one go.
Run that for a while, review, and maybe expand the idea later.

Other ideas:

Tie system occupancy to ownership of the stations.
For example, Minnies claim occupancy of a system, some (but not all) stations change ownership to Tribal Liberation Force and a variety of other Minmatar npc corps.
This will give some tangible reason to occupy a system without (hopefully) completely ruining the balance.

High sec NPC navies should remain pretty much as they are. You can still go raiding in the opposing militia's high sec areas if you want to now, so I don't see much reason for taking them away. It just makes sense that the 'real' military will try to control their own high sec space. Several other good reasons for keeping them have been raised already.
If you really want to try it out, start by reducing the strength of the NPCs rather than removing them completely.


As alternative to denying docking rights completely you should consider just limiting the things hostile entities can do while docked. At the minimum denying hostile entities access to station services should be considered and it could go as far as denying access to items and ships completely in the occupied systems or just prevent them from restocking their assets there. Point being it doesn't have to be all or nothing with docking rights and it might even be preferable and more interesting, if you use a less blunt instruments to bring more meaning to occupancy.


I just want to point out again, to whoever may be reading this (wink wink devs) that any sov changes that you think about or read here will only be feasable if you remove post dt plexing spawns.

I has all the eve inactivity

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#289 - 2011-10-26 18:02:41 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Docking rights to hostile stations should be removed right away tbfh, there is no logical reason why you would accept that ppl you are war with to dock in your stations


bribes? pay to dock maybe?

I has all the eve inactivity

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#290 - 2011-10-26 18:33:16 UTC
Keep in mind that you are well and truly screwed without something as simple as services .. have fun waging a war of attrition when all you can do is change ships, no fitting .. no repair .. no nothing.
Only "problem" with that limited approach is the possibility of using alts to do the servicing, but holy hell that is going to drive some people to suicide me'thinks.

In short: Docking rights don't need to be revoked as all the power lies in the services.

For completeness, the 'rules' should apply not only to ALL stations in hostile space but to hostile stations everywhere (ie. Amarr will never be able to dock in NPC matar station no matter where it is).
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#291 - 2011-10-26 18:37:29 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Docking rights to hostile stations should be removed right away tbfh, there is no logical reason why you would accept that ppl you are war with to dock in your stations



Yeah I agree. However this is not going accomplish much.

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

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#292 - 2011-10-26 18:44:29 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Keep in mind that you are well and truly screwed without something as simple as services .. have fun waging a war of attrition when all you can do is change ships, no fitting .. no repair .. no nothing.
Only "problem" with that limited approach is the possibility of using alts to do the servicing, but holy hell that is going to drive some people to suicide me'thinks.

In short: Docking rights don't need to be revoked as all the power lies in the services.

For completeness, the 'rules' should apply not only to ALL stations in hostile space but to hostile stations everywhere (ie. Amarr will never be able to dock in NPC matar station no matter where it is).



This thread is getting ambiguous.

1) you have the 4 actual fw corps 24th imperial crusade etc.
2) You have the corps that are members of a faction like boundless creation is a member of the minmatar faction.
3) You have stations in an area that is in a system occupied by one faction or another.

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

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#293 - 2011-10-26 18:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
The war is between four factions, not the four empires. It is perfectly logical to deny docking rights to members of the FDU from any State Protectorate station. However, since Lai Dai isn't at war with the FDU, then they shouldn't deny docking rights. At least from a backstory, RP, sense. ... Carry on.
mkint
#294 - 2011-10-26 19:07:12 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
The war is between four factions, not the four empires. It is perfectly logical to deny docking rights to members of the FDU from any State Protectorate station. However, since Lai Dai isn't at war with the FDU, then they shouldn't deny docking rights. At least from a backstory, RP, sense. ... Carry on.

Am I sure I understand this correctly? You're saying Gallente isn't at war with Caldari? Just that Gallente Militia is at war with Caldari Militia? Well... that's like saying "the US military was at war with the Japanese military." That might be true, but US still nuked the hell out of a civilian target, and still restricted the freedoms of US residents of Japanese descent. Or, the Germans still tried to stop the Allies from waltzing through (civilian) Germany. And if the modern US was ever invaded by ground forces from anywhere, I guarantee there would be thousands of civilians on the streets with their .22 rifles, and glock pistols.

With the docking rights thing... it would make sense that non-militia "foreign" stations (i.e. stations belonging to one faction but in the space of a hostile faction) would be open to everyone, while all nationals (stations in the faction's space which they belong to) would be closed to hostile militias, and militia stations should ALWAYS be closed to hostile militias regardless of location. With a little world shaping to make sure it's balanced, controlling stations could add a lot to FW tactics. Especially if station access was based on occupancy.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
Stay Feral
#295 - 2011-10-26 19:33:32 UTC
OK, Guard, here's how it is:

To make Factional Warfare work as something other than free PvP (which is obviously your intention, otherwise it would just be free PvP), you must give territory control consequences that matter to the PvPers.

If Gallente systems are taken, you need to make that matter to the entire militia, not just the plexers. In essence, you must - read, MUST - eliminate the differentiation between "plexers" and "PvPers". PvPers shouldn't help plexers because they happen to feel like it - in the new FW, PvPers should help plexers because bad things will happen to them if they don't. You need to:

a. make the new territory control mechanic fun and interesting
b. make sure that if you're in the militia, you need to be involved in it

Make every militia member responsible for and instrumental in the defence of home territory and the capture of enemy territory, reward all of them for success and hold all of them responsible for failure.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Reward everything, and reward everyone. I don't know exactly what rewards and punishments should be levied for capturing, holding or losing enemy territory or defending or losing home territory. But you need to have them, and they need to apply to everyone, so that there's no reason to be in the militia if you're not committed to it.

2. Make defending your own territory easy but cheap and capturing enemy territory difficult but rewarding. Currently it's way too easy for one side to force the other into a constant cycle of spending so much time defending their own space that they don't have the opportunity to attack enemy space. Make it very easy to defend your own space but comparitively unrewarding - by the same token, make it difficult to capture and occupy enemy systems, but make that investiture of time and effort worth the while in the rewards it gives.

3. Success should be harder and harder to repeat, but more and more rewarding. As you capture and hold more and more territory, it should be harder to capture the rest, but the rewards for doing so should increase in equal measure. On the flipside, this means that the more of their territory is occupied, the easier it is for the underdog to make a comeback - this means the losing side is never caught in a situation where there's no point in trying to fight back, which, I think everyone will admit, is just not fun.

4. Restore the EVE in-world news service. We like hearing about the consequences are actions are having. Weekly or even daily news articles from the four factions please.

5. Balance, Balance, Balance. For this to work, everything needs to be balanced perfectly. Make sure that absolutely nothing is timezone dependent. If there are NPCs, make sure they all move, tank, DPS and ECM the same across all races. If one side has a total or online player advantage, find a fair way to offset it. Make sure each race has strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited by all the other races.

6. Make us feel like our effort matters. Give us the feeling that our struggles are not in vain. Make real changes happen if we put in the work.

7. Let us destroy that goddamn Titan. Seriously CCP, do not put a thing there that has 100% resists, and then tell us we can destroy it - that's a **** move. Let us destroy the Leviathan, end the occupation and give some real storyline weight to the Gallente-Caldari struggle again.

8. In fact, fix the whole storyline. Yeah, seriously. The storyline for FW is full of holes. We really need to fix that.

9. More drastic changes. I'm not expecting all or even many of my suggestions to be picked up by CCP, and especially not in the first update to FW, but in the unlikely event they want to hear some of my more drastic ideas, here's some tasters:

- Remove CONCORD. Like, completely. Forever. Put rapid-response in hi-sec in the hands of the factions.
- FW live events and direct interaction with important factional NPCs.
- Faction-locked ships.
- Mercenary involvement.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
#296 - 2011-10-26 19:36:01 UTC
Cearain wrote:
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Docking rights to hostile stations should be removed right away tbfh, there is no logical reason why you would accept that ppl you are war with to dock in your stations



Yeah I agree. However this is not going accomplish much.

it will accomplish that if you do venture into hostile space, then you better be ready to fight if hostiles show up, rather then just docking up. At least with the changes to log off mechanismes.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#297 - 2011-10-26 19:56:29 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
mkint wrote:
Am I sure I understand this correctly? You're saying Gallente isn't at war with Caldari? Just that Gallente Militia is at war with Caldari Militia? Well... that's like saying "the US military was at war with the Japanese military." That might be true, but US still nuked the hell out of a civilian target, and still restricted the freedoms of US residents of Japanese descent. Or, the Germans still tried to stop the Allies from waltzing through (civilian) Germany. And if the modern US was ever invaded by ground forces from anywhere, I guarantee there would be thousands of civilians on the streets with their .22 rifles, and glock pistols.

With the docking rights thing... it would make sense that non-militia "foreign" stations (i.e. stations belonging to one faction but in the space of a hostile faction) would be open to everyone, while all nationals (stations in the faction's space which they belong to) would be closed to hostile militias, and militia stations should ALWAYS be closed to hostile militias regardless of location. With a little world shaping to make sure it's balanced, controlling stations could add a lot to FW tactics. Especially if station access was based on occupancy.


I get what you're saying. However, did you know that there are only Caldari allied stations in Black Rise? Your suggestion would mean that FDU pilots could not dock anywhere in the entire Black Rise region while State Protectorate pilots could dock in any number of stations in Placid - hell, over half the 11 stations in Vlillirier are "foreign".

In any case, from the RP perspective it's FDU vs. State Protectorate to keep the empires from going to war with each other. Let those zealots in militia shoot each other to death - everybody else will carry on with their business.
mkint
#298 - 2011-10-26 20:22:43 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
mkint wrote:
Am I sure I understand this correctly? You're saying Gallente isn't at war with Caldari? Just that Gallente Militia is at war with Caldari Militia? Well... that's like saying "the US military was at war with the Japanese military." That might be true, but US still nuked the hell out of a civilian target, and still restricted the freedoms of US residents of Japanese descent. Or, the Germans still tried to stop the Allies from waltzing through (civilian) Germany. And if the modern US was ever invaded by ground forces from anywhere, I guarantee there would be thousands of civilians on the streets with their .22 rifles, and glock pistols.

With the docking rights thing... it would make sense that non-militia "foreign" stations (i.e. stations belonging to one faction but in the space of a hostile faction) would be open to everyone, while all nationals (stations in the faction's space which they belong to) would be closed to hostile militias, and militia stations should ALWAYS be closed to hostile militias regardless of location. With a little world shaping to make sure it's balanced, controlling stations could add a lot to FW tactics. Especially if station access was based on occupancy.


I get what you're saying. However, did you know that there are only Caldari allied stations in Black Rise? Your suggestion would mean that FDU pilots could not dock anywhere in the entire Black Rise region while State Protectorate pilots could dock in any number of stations in Placid - hell, over half the 11 stations in Vlillirier are "foreign".

In any case, from the RP perspective it's FDU vs. State Protectorate to keep the empires from going to war with each other. Let those zealots in militia shoot each other to death - everybody else will carry on with their business.

mkint wrote:

With a little world shaping to make sure it's balanced

I figured it wouldn't be balanced out the door. Perhaps CCP could do some FW live events to allow factions to conquer and/or liberate a couple no-agent stations in hostile territory, then do some world shaping to make the live event matter. That would also give a RP kickoff as to why they would close down stations to hostile forces.

I've said before though, I've never done FW. But FWers have been asking for a reason for occupancy to matter, and docking rights does indeed seem like a good way to make occupancy matter, as long as the field is balanced. (my reason for not doing FW have and will always be because it requires a full employment commitment, day trippers need not apply.)

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#299 - 2011-10-26 20:40:21 UTC
Denying docking rights or services to enemy NPC stations would effectively kill small gang combat, as people would no longer be able to repair heat damage or effect repairs.

This is NOT a good idea at all.

Just make sov loss raise the costs of repairing. That's all. Nothing too dramatic, but a noticeable change.
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#300 - 2011-10-26 21:07:34 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
Denying docking rights or services to enemy NPC stations would effectively kill small gang combat, as people would no longer be able to repair heat damage or effect repairs.



Ahem. Why exactly? Because it sure as hell does not have this effect in nullsec, where dockingrights are far from certain.