These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2011-10-07 15:51:46 UTC
FW should be a never ending conuest match of battlefield in space.

yes ban supercaps
we dont need alliances so much in FW, keep it loosy organized.

conquer stations = lockout of enemy fw, set taxes for neuts, the one who did the most trying to take the stations gets the ownership

upgradable systems, FW police shoul come help defend FW players that are aggressed by pirates, this means FW plays can focus more on enemies then pirates.

No pve at all.. no plexes no missions, enemies can drop tags ( max 5 tags per day) dependong on how many enemies they have killing in the last week the better the tag. so the more u kill, the more valuable your death will be worth, ye sthis can be abused, try to base it off ship hulls too.

my ideas
+ less yartarrds killing FW memebers
+ trade wil become more viable in lowsec,
+more PVP between the factions
+ more people in lowsec = pirates can see more targets
+conquest in space = win

-pirate tears ( maybe)
- FW players who farm plexes all day will Q_Q
Takamori Maruyama
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2011-10-07 15:55:25 UTC
Event battles?
So we can mass a damn amount of players and make an epic battle.

Loud and clear...

Seriphyn Inhonores
Elusenian Cooperative
#23 - 2011-10-07 16:30:12 UTC
Supercap-blobbing alliances can stay the **** out of my FW tyvm
Lugalzagezi666
#24 - 2011-10-07 17:40:02 UTC
At least its not only me who thinks that "allow alliances" + "give sovereignity consequences" would result in destroying one of the last small scale pvp enviroments in eve and changed it in perpetual blobage. Big smile

David Grogan
NerdHerd
#25 - 2011-10-07 18:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: David Grogan
high sec needs to be vunerable too in fw

for example if minmatar militia attacks an amarrian constellation with 3x low sec and 3x high sec systems in it and manages to capture all the low secs systems then the 3 remaining high sec systems should drop to 0.4 sec systems and thus become vunerable to attack

if the minmatar militia is successful in capturing all 6 systems in the constellation then 3 will flip to 0.5 sec & 3 will remain low sec but under minmatar's sov. if the adjoining constellations also gets captured by the minmatar militia then the systems in the first constellation all flip to high sec and the surrounding constellation's systems that are in direct contact with the first constellation will flip to low sec first starting at 0.1 sec and rising over time provided the system remains held by the amarrian militia but if the minmatar take these adjoining low sec systems then the surrounding high sec in that constellation drops to low sec until again captured by minmatar where it then flips back up to high sec but again now under minmatar control.

(all systems increases over time upto a max of 0.7 sec) 1.0 to 0.8 sec systems will remain invulnerable to attack so new rookies will always have a safe place to start off their eve training.

if all a region's vunerable systems (0.7 or below) is captured by minmatar militia then all the constellations bordering another minmatar controlled region become high sec and all constellations bordering any non minmatar controlled regions will have 50% of the systems low sec and 50% high sec unless those constellations are being contested.

so that there is always a way to invade a region held by one of the 4 factions 50% of all systems bordering null sec will always be low sec. Also Concord held space cannot be attacked

this would make high sec -> low/null sec routes constantly shift. yes pirates would have to move about more to get ganks on haulers... but haulers too would have to find ways to get stuff out safely to null sec.

but overall it would shift about bottlenecks or even remove in to regions systems such as keberz -> hed-gp or torrinos ->ec-p8r or kari -> y-mpwl or dital ->kpb7-g

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.

Count NULL
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-07 20:03:59 UTC
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
At least its not only me who thinks that "allow alliances" + "give sovereignity consequences" would result in destroying one of the last small scale pvp enviroments in eve and changed it in perpetual blobage. Big smile



No you're not the alone.

Allowing alliance into FW will do several things:

1) Large alliances will start to farm FW missions or any other means of getting LP, destroying LP item market for the rest of us. Most people in FW rely on missions to support their PvP. Take away this income from people and watch FW die.

2) Destroy small corp warfare: How can a 20 man corp compete with nulsec alliance, that can drop caps on you at any time. Well someone might then say that it will force people to join or form alliances of their own. However a lot of active people in FW right now are in it precisely because we don't want to deal with all of the alliance drama. We fell absolutely fine being a loosely associated bunch of gun-ho lunatics connected only by our desire to kill stuff and talking smack on TS. There is a reason why FW alliances do not last. FW as it is right now is a Wild West of EVE. It's harsh and inhospitable, it's largely empty but if you're willing to stick around and learn few tricks it gives one an ultimate freedom of not giving a **** about politics, dramas and attitudes of basement dwellers who somehow manged to get to position of power in an alliance.

3) It will lead to bigger blobs: Even right now if someone decides to put their carriers into combat the risk of getting hot dropped is very high. Combined with fact that you cant really get rich in FW it leads to largely low-scale action, where fighting is not just about who can get larger blob out ( though sometimes it is), but about how well you know the area and your opponent. Large alliances will bring nothing, but blobs of players in expensive ships (not a bad thing on its own), chasing around newbies in rifters. No thank you. I feel fine, when we have to deal with their roaming blobs right now, but i don't want to deal with them every-time I undock.

Count NULL
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2011-10-07 20:08:02 UTC
One more thing: I don't think we'll get anything out of CCP besides some cosmetic changes anyway, given how much they put on plate for winter expansion. So I would not hold my breath for any major changes. maybe they'll address some well know and annoying bugs, or give us some live events , but I'll be really surprised if we see anything more than that in coming expansion.
Agonising Ecstacy
Chaos Army
#28 - 2011-10-07 20:18:49 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
..... Having Pandemic Legion in the thick of things pretty much ground regular fleetwork to a halt recently, as no one wants to organize any fleet large enough to attract a supercap gank. ...


Nooooo!!!! Eve works because you can never guarantee your the biggest guy on the block. It's precisely BECAUSE the beloved Legion will hot drop the living **** out of your half baked cap fleet, that keeps FW as PVP-Lite. Remove the threat of 'too juicy a target' getting stamped on by the big boys and all you do is make FW another blob race. Who can field the most caps.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#29 - 2011-10-07 20:19:27 UTC
Count NULL wrote:
Lugalzagezi666 wrote:
At least its not only me who thinks that "allow alliances" + "give sovereignity consequences" would result in destroying one of the last small scale pvp enviroments in eve and changed it in perpetual blobage. Big smile



No you're not the alone.

Allowing alliance into FW will do several things:

1) Large alliances will start to farm FW missions or any other means of getting LP, destroying LP item market for the rest of us. Most people in FW rely on missions to support their PvP. Take away this income from people and watch FW die.

2) Destroy small corp warfare: How can a 20 man corp compete with nulsec alliance, that can drop caps on you at any time. Well someone might then say that it will force people to join or form alliances of their own. However a lot of active people in FW right now are in it precisely because we don't want to deal with all of the alliance drama. We fell absolutely fine being a loosely associated bunch of gun-ho lunatics connected only by our desire to kill stuff and talking smack on TS. There is a reason why FW alliances do not last. FW as it is right now is a Wild West of EVE. It's harsh and inhospitable, it's largely empty but if you're willing to stick around and learn few tricks it gives one an ultimate freedom of not giving a **** about politics, dramas and attitudes of basement dwellers who somehow manged to get to position of power in an alliance.

3) It will lead to bigger blobs: Even right now if someone decides to put their carriers into combat the risk of getting hot dropped is very high. Combined with fact that you cant really get rich in FW it leads to largely low-scale action, where fighting is not just about who can get larger blob out ( though sometimes it is), but about how well you know the area and your opponent. Large alliances will bring nothing, but blobs of players in expensive ships (not a bad thing on its own), chasing around newbies in rifters. No thank you. I feel fine, when we have to deal with their roaming blobs right now, but i don't want to deal with them every-time I undock.



I think you make some good points here. I remember when one of bobs corps joined minmatar. It was allot of station camping and not much fun.

Though I also think its a shame that certain player alliances that have traditionally been aligned with a faction can't participate.


What if they made it this way:

1) Only corps can join fw not whole alliances

2) If your corp is in an alliance, you can only join if your alliance does not hold sov.

This way certain alliances could have a few corps in the faction war. Do you still think lots of large alliances would join fw in order to farm the missions?


Also keep in mind that if there are enough plexes throughout the fw regions it is hard to blob them. They are restricted by ship size.

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

Thgil Goldcore
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2011-10-07 20:23:15 UTC
Perhaps to spawn more PVP fights in FW a simple change in rewards is in order. Make it far more profitable and rewarding to blow up hostile ships than just getting something tasty on the killboards. This very simple change of adding a larger isk reward to blowing hostiles up would encourage players to actually fight each other.

PROs
-gets people to focus more on PVP, since its an income source.
-Money gets people modivated to organize.
-More fights = better!
-Encourages people to join milita's to make PVP a job!

CONs
-'noob farming' may become more legitimized
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#31 - 2011-10-07 20:31:57 UTC
Thgil Goldcore wrote:
Perhaps to spawn more PVP fights in FW a simple change in rewards is in order. Make it far more profitable and rewarding to blow up hostile ships than just getting something tasty on the killboards. This very simple change of adding a larger isk reward to blowing hostiles up would encourage players to actually fight each other.

PROs
-gets people to focus more on PVP, since its an income source.
-Money gets people modivated to organize.
-More fights = better!
-Encourages people to join milita's to make PVP a job!

CONs
-'noob farming' may become more legitimized



What If I had my alts join the opposing militia, buy a bunch of t1 ships, insured them and then I blew them up? This will always be a sort of cap to the pvp rewards, and this means the rewards will never be all that great.

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

Thgil Goldcore
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2011-10-07 21:05:44 UTC
Scaling rewards can always work nicely... IE scale the rewards with the effectivness of the person you killed, IE they are worth more pending on their kill/loss rates. An alt who dies alot wouldn't be worth jack ****, a person with 2000 kills on their belt would be.

But you are right, there is still room for exploitation. Still, some rewards > none
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#33 - 2011-10-07 21:23:04 UTC
Thgil Goldcore wrote:
Scaling rewards can always work nicely... IE scale the rewards with the effectivness of the person you killed, IE they are worth more pending on their kill/loss rates. An alt who dies alot wouldn't be worth jack ****, a person with 2000 kills on their belt would be.

But you are right, there is still room for exploitation. Still, some rewards > none


I agree with this. Plus the original lp rewards for pvp kills happened before the insurance nerf. So there probably is some room to up the lp rewards.

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

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
Infinite Pew
#34 - 2011-10-08 11:30:31 UTC
WOW!! Great responses guys, I love all the good discussion. The more good ideas get worked out here, the easier job the developers have sorting out the best fixes to do in the limited time before winter expansion. I'll get back to some specific ideas here once I get a chance to read them all, but thanks everyone for the good turn out so far..... This thread was a bit slow to start but I look away for 24 hours and now there's more posts than I can read in one sitting :) Keep it up!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#35 - 2011-10-08 16:41:50 UTC
3rd attempt at posting today..... :|

Alliances in FW

As a member of an RP-PVP alliance, being locked out of the games incarnation of the 'RP conflict' kinda sucks. This severely hurt the existing RP scene when FW launched as it negatively impacted many of the games existing RP entities. CCP's view was that we could just disband our alliances and share a chat channel because its 'basically the same thing'. I disagreed then, I disagree now.

A long time ago I proposed a system where faction standings could be used to allow alliances into FW but still pose a bar against larger entities walking in to steam roll or just plain grief the whole thing. If an average of all member pilots/corps faction standings were taken and a suitable threshold set then it be used to filter out the motivated alliances from idle griefers. It also scales up, the larger your alliance is then the harder it will be to achieve and keep that threshold. As new corps join an alliance they will need to have compatible standings else the alliance loses its FW status. I think such a system would restrict access to alliances focused on FW, RP-motivated alliances and effectively exclude larger groups entirely.

I think that alliances are good for forming social structures and identity, that has value. It is why we did not disband the Ushra'Khan 4 years back. We valued the history and social bonds too much.

Finally, I think that FW could provide a good breeding ground for alliances to emerge from that can mature before stepping out into null sec on their own. Battle hardened, close knit young alliances stepping out to carve their names into nul sec? Sounds like part of the shake up null sec needs tbh.

Make Occupancy Matter

Who is winning the war should matter. The fact it doesn't has always annoyed me and de-motivates anyone from going after the plexes or whatever system might be developed to replace them. EVE is a game about consequences, cause and effect. FW has none.

I would like to see occupancy of systems have repercussions, such as docking restrictions or access to station services being revoked. Or the sentry guns thing. But more than that, I want to see the outcomes of FW have an impact beyond FW. Faction standings should mean more in this game than which agents will give you a job. If my Amarr standings suck and I go wandering through the war zone, I should not be welcomed into their stations. Therefore, it should be in my interest to support the Minmatar to take that system if I want to use it for my own ends. Null sec alliances should not have free reign, and the militias should be a ;part of the wider world than just a limited section of low sec.


FW expansion

I think that consideration should be given to expanding the war zones throughout low sec. Particularly if it does become more popular.


Incursion-style Mechanics

This is likely too much content for the winter expansion, but I'd like to see the Incursion mechanics leveraged to create more dynamic FW content. The empires could launch offensives spawning special encounter sites intended to provoke more focused fights. To keep it in keeping with the backstory of the Militia Act, these might be faction navy 'NPC capsuleers' or groups such as the Minmatar Elders or Caldari Dragonaurs (Tibus Heth's lot) instigating the attacks outside of the empire governments. These randomly occurring 'offensives' might include encounter sites for both sides allowing for an influence tug of war to resolve system occupancy.


Transparency & Stats

There is a website hosted by the ISD (volunteers) that tracks FW stats. It monitors system captures and corp kill/victory points. This is stuff that should be presented in game and on EVEgate. The status of contested systems is currently shown as blobs on the starmap. None of this is currently very clear, accessible or engaging. An overhaul of how FW information is presented would improve the connection players feel to the war effort I think.

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#36 - 2011-10-08 17:07:15 UTC
Ugleb wrote:

Make Occupancy Matter

Who is winning the war should matter. The fact it doesn't has always annoyed me and de-motivates anyone from going after the plexes or whatever system might be developed to replace them. EVE is a game about consequences, cause and effect. FW has none.

I would like to see occupancy of systems have repercussions, such as docking restrictions or access to station services being revoked. Or the sentry guns thing. But more than that, I want to see the outcomes of FW have an impact beyond FW. Faction standings should mean more in this game than which agents will give you a job. If my Amarr standings suck and I go wandering through the war zone, I should not be welcomed into their stations. Therefore, it should be in my interest to support the Minmatar to take that system if I want to use it for my own ends. Null sec alliances should not have free reign, and the militias should be a ;part of the wider world than just a limited section of low sec.


FW expansion

I think that consideration should be given to expanding the war zones throughout low sec. Particularly if it does become more popular.


Incursion-style Mechanics

This is likely too much content for the winter expansion, but I'd like to see the Incursion mechanics leveraged to create more dynamic FW content. The empires could launch offensives spawning special encounter sites intended to provoke more focused fights. To keep it in keeping with the backstory of the Militia Act, these might be faction navy 'NPC capsuleers' or groups such as the Minmatar Elders or Caldari Dragonaurs (Tibus Heth's lot) instigating the attacks outside of the empire governments. These randomly occurring 'offensives' might include encounter sites for both sides allowing for an influence tug of war to resolve system occupancy.



This is something I completly agree with.

Herping yourDerp wrote:
FW should be a never ending conuest match of battlefield in space.

No pve at all.. no plexes no missions, enemies can drop tags ( max 5 tags per day) dependong on how many enemies they have killing in the last week the better the tag. so the more u kill, the more valuable your death will be worth, ye sthis can be abused, try to base it off ship hulls too.

my ideas
+ less yartarrds killing FW memebers
+ trade wil become more viable in lowsec,
+more PVP between the factions
+ more people in lowsec = pirates can see more targets
+conquest in space = win

-pirate tears ( maybe)
- FW players who farm plexes all day will Q_Q


This also.

In fact I think I posted these ideas, like other did at least 5 times before. I am sure other talked about this before me as well it is nice to see everyone can see this as a possible solution.

I like to restate that players should be the one planning assaults in group and the empires shoud respond by supporting the players. Offcoursre special events etc can/could/should be organised and triggered when things go to the other way around.

I also like an idea that was floated around where you can see on the FW starmap who is attack which systems (miltia wise not corp wise) to have an idea of the enemy and to make up your mind about their plans. Some kind of larger tactics and planning could be read into that and combined with occupancy based benefits we should have something of a functioning front line and a real war going with the support of the empires.


- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#37 - 2011-10-09 13:07:46 UTC
Faction standing to allow alliances in to fw:

I'm not sure this would be any sort of significant barrier. At least not unless they make changes to how easy it is to get faction standings. Its really pretty easy to boost your standings in a faction. You could just tell pilots that want to join your alliance they have to join the npc militia corp (or some other militia corp and run some plexes.) Most times you can then boost your faction standing in a week or so.


Incursion style mechanics:

I think using existing mechanics is really self limitting on what FW can become. We already have incursions in low sec. Therefor to the extent that mechanic is going to draw people into eve - its already happening.

If they just repackage that gameplay mechanic and call it fw they are not going to make fw something that draws new people in to eve.

I think they should try to make fw something that will increase the number of subscribers by 100k. Repackaging existing gameplay mechanics will not do that.

I think if they want to really draw people into eve they need to make a mechanic that showcases frequent small scale pvp. Thats the thing that eve currently does not have.

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

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#38 - 2011-10-09 15:39:08 UTC
I'd have to agree with Cearain (shoot me now! Smile) in that standings makes a ****-poor access criteria .. we don't want alliances to be able to get the best of several worlds, it is either/or so I say CCP's old idea of allowing them in provided they hold no space is still the most "fair" one.
Would personally want even more and stricter requirements to prevent excessive blobbing but unsure of what those might be ..

As for Incursion style mechanics; why, oh why is it always all or nothing with you Cearain Lol

We strip it of the useful stuff, add some specifically FW related and exchange it for the broken POS we have now, example;
Ranks:
- Ranks gained by missions are stripped immediately, if not possible then reset the whole shebang.
- Points towards ranks are gained by plexing and shooting people in the face.
- Scale rank points based on gang-size like is currently done with LP-for-Kills and Incursion payouts (rewards "keeping it small" and thus discourages blobbing).

- Militia interface is revamped to contain actual useful data for the two sides (Min/Gal, Am/Cal).
- Five tabs, one per militia plus one (see next), limited data available for enemy militia's but full for ally. Can have best killer, best plexer, biggest kill, various metrics etc. .. basically a combination of an e-peen contest and intel tool.
- Voting tab, this is where the new ranks come into play. Once every week or fortnight the militia gets to vote for an offensive target , everyone starts with one vote as base but with higher rank comes more votes (still just one selection).
- In between votes the tab is used for data concerning progress on the chosen target and the runner-up (secondary) as well as data on enemy primary target (but not secondary).

- Assaults are constellation wide, using an Incursion type bar with rounded numerical value to show progress.
- Plexes will have high likelihood of spawning in primary target, above average in secondary and below average everywhere else.
- Plexes are a mix of not only sizes but goals. Hacking, Archaeology, straight up red-cross popping etc. are all represented, most of them should be designed to disallow solo capture (see below).
- *Hacking example* Goal can take the form of a mini-game contests where one side is trying to break into data nodes while the other tries to encrypt/secure them (think DeusEx:HR hacking minigame). By requiring twin nodes to be accessed at a time for it to work the solo-frig can be eradicated.
- Time to complete for attacker should aim for roughly same as now while time for defender is shorter .. locking a door is considerably easier than breaking it down.

- Missions remain as they are with hopefully an increase in difficulty. Getting paid 40-50M for five minutes work just shouldn't exist in Eve regardless of travel time or "risk".
- All missions designed to include a kill-switch so that the opposing side can force it closed after a time if 'owner' decides to bolt.
- Missions are more likely to spawn in targeted constellation (same frequency as plexes in secondary target, ie. above avg.).
- Missions contribute 0.1% of their LP payout towards occupancy (or whatever makes a level 4 roughly equal to a medium plex).
- Mission LP payout is scaled upwards with rank so that a max ranked character can get ~20% more than a farmer alt, plus the contribution towards occupancy is increased with rank so that a max rank lvl4 has the same value as the biggest major plex.

Enough for now, brain needs to vent all this gas.
Ugleb
Jotunn Risi
#39 - 2011-10-09 19:30:39 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Faction standing to allow alliances in to fw:

I'm not sure this would be any sort of significant barrier. At least not unless they make changes to how easy it is to get faction standings. Its really pretty easy to boost your standings in a faction. You could just tell pilots that want to join your alliance they have to join the npc militia corp (or some other militia corp and run some plexes.) Most times you can then boost your faction standing in a week or so.


Dunno about you, but I can't see alliances persuading hundreds of people to all go standing grind for weeks on multiple characters. Telling every recruit to go grind standings up then come back is a good way to lose yourself recruits too.

If the minimum standings requirement is set high enough then it will become a non-trivial barrier for any larger entity to achieve. And what do they gain from all the effort at the end of the day anyway? Does it help them conquer Delve?

http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/

The Jotunn Risi are now recruiting, Brutor ancestry required in order to best represent the Brutor interest.  Join channel JORIS to learn more!

Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#40 - 2011-10-09 20:10:10 UTC
I think the people going "OMG LET ALLIANCES IN AND ALL PVP WILL DIE IN FW QQ" are getting this out of perspective. Allowing alliances to join FW (RP alliances, up and coming small alliances) would benefit from this, because obviously CCP should implement if an alliance should fight under the flag of an empire then they cannot hold sov.

If people are so concerned with nullsec entities tieing you up and giving you a steamer on your chest, guess what, you're in FW its already happened, and will happen to you on several occasions. Nothing stops PL from camping tama or hotdropping anything in sight. Nothing stops a bored rooks and kings T3 gang from bridging into the middle of your fight. Get over it, because it's going to happen whether they're in faction war or not.