These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Factional Warfare, and some easy ways to fix it
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-12-14 07:31:12 UTC
I don't like factional warfare. I think anyone from the EVE Online community who knows anything about me probably knows that. I would vastly prefer that FW had never existed, and failing that, I would prefer CCP scrap it and replace it with something completely different and far more dynamic. However, such pipe dreaming doesn't actually help the current situation, so I have a few simple suggestions that would vastly improve the current system:

- Systems can't be contested unless they border a system of opposing sovereignty. Simply put - you can't capture a system if you don't own a system next door to it. This means that attacking random systems deep in enemy sovereignty no longer works. It creates warfronts where action is concentrated, meaning that it's no longer possible for farmers to spin plexes in quiet systems in relative safety - anyone who wants to run plexes has to be on the front lines. However, even if all of a faction's contested systems are captured, some of those systems still have links to hi-sec, and hi-sec space can't be captured, so there'll always be systems contestible by the losing side.

- Hostile sovereignty decays over time. Simply put - systems that are owned by someone other than who they're supposed to be owned by (for example, Tama being owned by the Federation or Amamake being owned by the Empire) slowly tick up their contested level automatically until they reach a vulnerable state, although they won't flip on their own. Defensive plexes can lower the contestation level as normal, but this means that in general systems might be easy to conquer, but they're not easy to hold - if you want to keep occupying a system, you have to work on it.

- The bigger the plex, the more it contributes to contestation. The basic idea here is that each level of plex contributes an amount to the contestation level of a system that is the sum total of each plex level below it plus 10%. This means that a defence or capture effort can't just ignore someone running a large plex and run the medium, small and novice plexes - even if they complete all three, they won't be at parity with the completion of the large one. Running two plexes of different sizes is thus no longer a zero-sum game.

- Militia membership bars you from all enemy faction stations. Station lock-out makes no sense if it's not absolute. There's no reason to have it in the game at all if a member of a militia can get around FW station lockout by moving one jump over to a system not in the FW contested zone, or even more abusrdly, to their enemy's hi-sec, a place where ostensibly they should be in even worse danger. Aligning yourself against a hostile faction should be a meaningful choice, depriving you of any place of safety within that faction's borders.

I have more comprehensive ideas for revamping or transforming FW, but I think these are four small changes would be a good place to start.

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.
Kakuzo Noud
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-12-14 07:32:43 UTC
FW is not broken, and working as intended 95% of the time.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2014-12-14 14:04:17 UTC
I want it like "x" because i want it like "x"Roll

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4 - 2014-12-15 03:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
how is forcing players to attack systems on a crawling basis rather than wherever they feel like dynamic? If plexers in quiet systems is a problem, then make the system 'un-quiet' with your autocannons.

That first idea screams of 'my side are not organised, we cannot be bothered to organise, so we want a lower number of contestable systems to force players to focus into one place'.

The rest are ok. Even im leaning towards station lockouts, but i'd like NPC navy presence in hi-sec nerfed before (or at the same time as) Hi-sec station lockout.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-12-15 04:05:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Andreus Ixiris
Daichi Yamato wrote:
That first idea screams of 'my side are not organised, we cannot be bothered to organise, so we want a lower number of contestable systems to force players to focus into one place'.

I'm not even in the militia, and if I did, the militia I always fought for in the past was the FDU, which has historically been the most well-organised and the best at PvP. The reason I'm not in FW is because I don't consider the mechanics to be engaging enough. In any case, this argument isn't about me.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
how is forcing players to attack systems on a crawling basis rather than wherever they feel like dynamic?

The idea of Factional Warfare has never been to be "dynamic" so much as to be an enabling mechanism for easy PvP. However, in recent years, for a lot of people it's become more about farming LP and avoiding PvP than about enabling it. What actually led me to write this article in the first place is that frustration with the mechanics caused several major alliances to leave the TLF, essentially allowing 24IC to steamroll the entirety of Minmatar space with little to no resistance. If FW is to function as intended, it still needs to be fun to be the underdog, to be on the losing side, and clearly that isn't happening because every time a militia starts to lose, there's a cascade effect of players, corporations and alliances leaving the militia to either do something else (bad) or go and work for the other side (worse). In return, once the opposing militia claims victory, the lack of targets and the monotony of defending the territory they've captured drives their own members away. The victorious militia no longer has the forces left to maintain their occupation, their control of their enemy's systems slips and the cycle slowly repeats itself.

Having systems captured in a sequential fashion makes the fight more like an actual war and concentrates action in hotspots where PvP is easy to find.

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.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-12-15 07:31:51 UTC
To the options:

- Yes.

- No.

- Yes.

- No.
Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#7 - 2014-12-15 14:44:29 UTC
+1, decent ideas
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#8 - 2014-12-15 17:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
But by focusing them into one place, youre forcing the underdogs to face off with the elite in systems which are predictable.

the underdogs cannot slip into enemy territory and plex systems behind enemy lines. Forcing the defenders to spread out. Instead they are forced to face the blob on their front lines.

This would then be compounded by making large sites more important than small sites. What you end up with is large fights with large ships (or ishtars) fighting in large sites being the focus of FW. This only favours the rich elite. Where as new bros in T1 frigs make less of a difference.

What we have right now is something where skirmishes are regular, losers can strike anywhere, new players can fly into a novice site and force the defenders to ship down to their level.

TL:DR
Current system is better for underdogs and new bros.

your system is about a rolling war for the elite and rich and is more likely to cause cascade as the options for counter attack become fewer, more expensive and against higher odds.

edit- oh and capital ships

hurrah Sad


edit2 - i would also like T1 BC's (perhaps not ABC's) be allowed into mediums. pretty please.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#9 - 2014-12-15 17:34:58 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
That first idea screams of 'my side are not organised, we cannot be bothered to organise, so we want a lower number of contestable systems to force players to focus into one place'.

I'm not even in the militia, and if I did, the militia I always fought for in the past was the FDU, which has historically been the most well-organised and the best at PvP. The reason I'm not in FW is because I don't consider the mechanics to be engaging enough. In any case, this argument isn't about me.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
how is forcing players to attack systems on a crawling basis rather than wherever they feel like dynamic?

The idea of Factional Warfare has never been to be "dynamic" so much as to be an enabling mechanism for easy PvP. However, in recent years, for a lot of people it's become more about farming LP and avoiding PvP than about enabling it. What actually led me to write this article in the first place is that frustration with the mechanics caused several major alliances to leave the TLF, essentially allowing 24IC to steamroll the entirety of Minmatar space with little to no resistance. If FW is to function as intended, it still needs to be fun to be the underdog, to be on the losing side, and clearly that isn't happening because every time a militia starts to lose, there's a cascade effect of players, corporations and alliances leaving the militia to either do something else (bad) or go and work for the other side (worse). In return, once the opposing militia claims victory, the lack of targets and the monotony of defending the territory they've captured drives their own members away. The victorious militia no longer has the forces left to maintain their occupation, their control of their enemy's systems slips and the cycle slowly repeats itself.

Having systems captured in a sequential fashion makes the fight more like an actual war and concentrates action in hotspots where PvP is easy to find.


You really think the underdog will fight if his only option is to go into the meatgrinder of specific systems well know to both militia?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#10 - 2014-12-16 00:44:37 UTC
Not into FW other than pure curiosity so I offer this for your consideration.

The ability of a small group to strike deep into the heart of the enemy territory is a time proven method of disrupting or controlling the flow of a battle the history of mankind is full of these types of things. So to me having this ability in FW here in the game just makes perfect sense.

I agree with many of the others, force the fights into a small number of systems along a well defined front seems crazy, real world example study the trench war fare of WW 1. I do not see how this could possibly add to the dynamics of a situation, in fact the reverse would be true. The term "entrenched" that came out of WW 1 seems appropriate as a way of describing what would happen if the OP ideas were put into place and in this game that meant the side with the most of everything would be victorious in all battles.

In comparison a well thought out and planned attack by a small group of new players could radically shift the face of an ongoing battle and that is the very definition of dynamic.

As I said at the start just some thoughts by a person that is not directly involved but does have more than a passing curiosity for the whole FW side of the game.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-12-16 02:29:11 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

You really think the underdog will fight if his only option is to go into the meatgrinder of specific systems well know to both militia?


Technically...this works for RvB. However...they tend to do what they do for pure fun. No conquests, no isk/lp farming....they just blow stuff up in known rvb systems because its a day ending in Y and why the hell not. Hell they actually cross recruit for each other as red by large doesn't want to be 3 times the size of blue and vice versa as I have seen rvb peeps on recruitment drives say please join the other side since they are light on numbers for a set time zone.

Model not working here as FW took on the whole internet spaceships is serious business here for some. This idea would just have the massive clashes 0.0 has. NOt sure if a good thing. I know vets of large battles like BR- who say this is eve. I know vets of BR who say if this eve....its N+1 mixed with tidi spice garbage lol.

Now with 0.0 there is srp/frp so as long as the welfare check come in well no reason to grind that op. May hate it but hey....its their dime for the ships so lemming it.

If memory serves....fw is not exactly footing out the bill for massive ops replacements by and large. So not sure what op is fixing here. N+1. Already seeing 2 players to your sides 1. Unlike current setup where you can try to ninjya in elsewhere its one blob meets other blob. If as in his setup minmatar fell apart with current setup versus amarr...its not like his setup is changing this. Even 0.0 doesn't do last man standing under extreme odds like this. Homes I was when the fight was in no hope territoy...evac, reform in NPC 0.0 if not low sec....try again or if going to utter crap failscade. Why give the enemy another 40 billion+ in easy kills. Military has a term for this, tactical withdrawal.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#12 - 2014-12-16 03:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I'm just going to toss my two cents in here...

My corporation left Faction Warfare NOT because we felt the system wasn't "meaningful enough" or because there were few ways to force people to fight...

We left partly BECAUSE of those reasons.


Many of us are "old timers" who fought because we liked fighting. And militia gave us a way to fight other like-minded people... not for money... not for system control... but for chestbeating rights. Glory.
And it was FUN because we didn't have to give a damn.

Then when FW came up for review and some people screamed loudly asked for "things to make sense" and "warfare be more meaningful."

We then got what we have now.


Station lockouts were my biggest gripe.
When introduced, it took away the ability for smaller groups to base out of or wage campaigns in far flung corners of the warzone... or change the front lines entirely***.
People were forced to consolidate into "bunker systems" for "safety reasons"... because the risk of being "locked out" of station was huge (especially for "weekend warriors").

Those groups that didn't want to even deal with the threat of station lockouts... they just based themselves right outside of the warzone entirely. They didn't have to care. They could just grab a ship and go pew.

In a sense... lockout mechanics made the warzone became LESS DYNAMIC.


***Storytime: WAY back in the day (before station lock-outs) Huola used to be the Amarr Militia stronghold. My corporation (and its allies) moved all our assets into the enemy stations and proceeded to "kick out" the Amarr by pretty much killing them in their own backyard.
It was actual hard and lethal work to take over a "stronghold system" because killing the enemy repeatedly was the only way to effectively do it. No complexes. No "high-ground." No arbitrary mechanics. Just pure ship-on-ship violence.
Their ability to fight back was no greater or less that ours.



And then there were those damn complexes. It was basically structure grinding but will less ammo... and bringing in more people would not make a difference because... you know... it's timed.

I ran them before the FW revamp... and it wasn't so bad because we did it to **** off Amarr Role Players... who usually came to "defend the motherland." They would do the same with us (even though we don't really care about RP stuff). Either way... we were fighting each other NOT for the complex but for the sake of fighting.

After the revamp... I really began to resent being forced to sit in each and every complex to "defend" a Minmatar system. Because if I didn't... either the system I was based in would fall or a system owned by an ally would fall. And I didn't get much PvP out of it.
Why?
Because it would be stupid to stay in a complex that is about to be swarmed when there are 3 or 4 other complexes I can go to and run. Because my pew time doesn't matter to the militia. The militia only cares that they hold the damn systems.

*takes a deep breath*
*wipes foam from mouth*
*stares off into the distance trying to calm down*


Now as far as your ideas are concerned OP...

1. Systems can't be contested unless they border a system of opposing sovereignty

No. This forces people into meatgrinder situations. If one side does not have the strength for a frontal assault then they should be able to go around the front lines and attack (and/or take territory) behind the enemy lines... Guerrilla tactics 101.


2. Hostile sovereignty decays over time.

This I could support.


3. The bigger the plex, the more it contributes to contestation.

Addendum 1: the complex requires a ship of X class present to capture it... where X = the max ship size the complex allows.

Addendum 2: Since Addendum 1 would basically mean that you would need a capital ship to capture an "Unrestricted Complex"... "Unrestricted Complexes" will be made exceedingly rare... no more than once every day or so per system.


4. Militia membership bars you from all enemy faction stations.

Counter-proposal: remove ALL docking restrictions in the game. Yes, even in null-sec. You want someone out of your system? Kill them. Repeatedly. No exceptions.

How did you Veterans start?
Ben Ishikela
#13 - 2014-12-16 04:28:45 UTC
I like all of your proposals. This one however i like best:
"Systems can't be contested unless they border a system of opposing sovereignty."
This is a must have. Its a shame that this rule does not exist.
@ "striking to their heart": POSs and resupply can be attacked behind the enemy lines. Capping plexes in a quiet system encourages little to none pvp. While trying to cap them in busy ones gets you a fight without much waiting.
@ "WW1" had a lot more Soldiers recruited and die than any other war, right? We want that in EVE, dont we? So that is a point for this rule. The four empires have their HSborders like that for a century.
@ "these rules only for the wealthy": if less systems get more crowded, there is less room for 1v1, people have to socialise and look for a "friend-ship" to help them. Brave recruited thousands and they can punch.
@ "one line: there are multiple stargates in some systems and there are several highsec-entrances. not just 2.
@" unability to attack the enemy behind the lines": In the absense of an easier option, a guerilla fighter will try to split a large fleet up and attack its weakspots (spying, market, diversion = goodContent). Running complexes in a quiet system is way too easy.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Ben Ishikela
#14 - 2014-12-16 04:36:31 UTC
Sorry for double post, but there are things i like to add: ***tossing second cent...
Expected Impact: FWLP value will skyrocket. Because resupply will be lower. Because less plexes will be runnable in average.
Solution Nr1: adjust resupply.
(might as well reduce "handInCost in LPStores", but this would help older players that have hold back LP very much more than new players.)
Realisation1.1: increase rawFWLPpayout.
Realisation1.2: "DynamicPayout". Look at how many complexes are finished in 5 days average and what is the average gathered LP. Make the Sum over all complexPayouts per faction a "constant" (this is the screw that can be tweaked by the balance team). So, if less complexes are run, the payout per plex is higher. When the activity in FW drops, its gets more lucrative to join. This might level out the participation a little. Not counting FWMissions here, for obvious reason. A faction has a tight budget, not? That is limited. It might have an annual maximum for payouts. (this maximum budget could be increased by starSystemUpgrades and FactionGDP, instead of increasing the plexPayout directly like it is right now)
These might need some tweaking in later patches.
Solution Nr2: add a decay of ca.10% loss in LP per month. (cant hold back loyalty for ages, can you?)
Realisation: multiply every Player's LP deposits (not only FW) with ca. 0.990 (-> -26%/month) every downtime. Add a skill ("penpal", lvl10, charisma, memory) that can raise this to ca. 0.995 (-> -14%/month).

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Ben Ishikela
#15 - 2014-12-16 04:49:18 UTC
.... and another cent Shocked
Issue still: the failscade of a loosing militia. Maybe a "Divided Faction Budget" solves this, maybe not.
There should be some rule that encourages players to join the loosing milita. But at the same time, it should hurt more for the older. I dont know, what we can do here. Maybe if a fraction of the economic value/income of the hold systems/station in the zone is paid out to all militia members as passive income/salary and rank2 gets double as well as rank10 gets 10times the amount of a rookie. BUT for every system that is lost, everyone is slightly demoted (not under rank1). That way, when a milita lost enough and starts fresh, there should nearly only be rank1, so lots of opportunity. right?

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Ben Ishikela
#16 - 2014-12-16 05:02:03 UTC
Sorry for these many posts, but somehow the forum keeps me from posting more in one or edit. contact me private, if you know the issue.


The bigger the plex, the more it contributes to contestation.
I would only like this, if a plex would "level up" on completion.
Only novices spawn. they become small (timer=0) on completion and so on.
This might encourage escalation.

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2014-12-16 07:08:19 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:


Daichi Yamato wrote:
how is forcing players to attack systems on a crawling basis rather than wherever they feel like dynamic?

The idea of Factional Warfare has never been to be "dynamic" so much as to be an enabling mechanism for easy PvP. However, in recent years, for a lot of people it's become more about farming LP and avoiding PvP than about enabling it.


Welcome to eve where the player base strives to lower the risk and raise the reward as much as possible

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Semidurr
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2014-12-16 10:30:35 UTC
-1

Your solutions fix nothing, all they promote is blobbing and remove ability to fight back from smaller entities.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-12-16 11:15:40 UTC
Lot of things to get through here.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
But by focusing them into one place, youre forcing the underdogs to face off with the elite in systems which are predictable.

the underdogs cannot slip into enemy territory and plex systems behind enemy lines.

A glance at the map will make it clear that there are many FW systems connected to hi-sec, and since hi-sec can't be captured in FW, systems adjoining these will always be contestable. If there aren't enough of these systems, adding new stargate links to hi-sec systems would be trivial. In fact, the larger lack of symmetry in the FW contested zones is something that should be looked at at some point as well.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
This would then be compounded by making large sites more important than small sites. What you end up with is large fights with large ships (or ishtars) fighting in large sites being the focus of FW. This only favours the rich elite. Where as new bros in T1 frigs make less of a difference.

Right now, the system favours those flying T1 frigates to the exclusion of all else. A T1 frigate is one of the best choices for FW plexing and solo PvP at the current time - if you fit it correctly you can run any level of plex with it, you can quickly flee any ship that you can't win a fight against and hey, even if you lose it, who gives a damn? It's a T1 frigate and they practically grow on trees.

Daichi Yamato wrote:
What we have right now is something where skirmishes are regular, losers can strike anywhere, new players can fly into a novice site and force the defenders to ship down to their level.

TL:DR
Current system is better for underdogs and new bros.

The fact that underdogs regularly leave the losing militia en-masse speaks to the falacious nature of this statement.

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.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-12-16 11:25:25 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
The ability of a small group to strike deep into the heart of the enemy territory is a time proven method of disrupting or controlling the flow of a battle the history of mankind is full of these types of things. So to me having this ability in FW here in the game just makes perfect sense.

But at this point, the one and only advantage of capturing a system "behind enemy lines" (which is a redunant phrase as no such lines currently exist) is switching the ownership of a station, providing you with a staging point and denying the enemy one. This is the one and only aspect of the current system which I will admit sort of promotes PvP rather than discourages it - but to be honest, have you seen Nennamaila? It's a meat-grinder, which is what every nay-sayer in this thread seems to be complaining about.

Donnachadh wrote:
I agree with many of the others, force the fights into a small number of systems along a well defined front seems crazy, real world example study the trench war fare of WW 1. I do not see how this could possibly add to the dynamics of a situation, in fact the reverse would be true. The term "entrenched" that came out of WW 1 seems appropriate as a way of describing what would happen if the OP ideas were put into place and in this game that meant the side with the most of everything would be victorious in all battles.

You do realise that "the side with the most of everything" already is victorious in the overwhelming majority of FW battles, right? Furthermore, you do realise that endless unwinnable trench warfare is essentially what FW was designed to be, since unlike null-sec sovereignty, the empires have a huge core of uncontestable space that means they can never be destroyed or even seriously injured. If you read the lore, in fact, there are only two systems of real historical significance to anyone in the entirety of both warzones, Intaki and Arzad.

I mean, at best you're just echoing the arguments I usually make as to why FW should be scrapped completely.

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.
12Next page