These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI - FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#1 - 2015-12-27 13:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Agnon
Hey-o,

I'm Nikolai Agnon, an officer from Dirt 'n' Glitter - EVE's premier Amarr Lowsec FW Corporation. I aim to apply my knowledge and experience of both Factional Warfare and lowsec in general to CSM XI this year. In addition to my exploits in Lowsec, I have spent time in Sov-null both in the CFC (via Fweddit back in the day) and in TEST. I run two separate hisec carebear corps, one involved in industry and wormholes, and another dedicated to missions and mining. I’ve always gravitated towards leadership roles as I’m always looking for more ways to help other players better enjoy the game. Currently I'm the second-in-command of one of the largest alliances in the Amarr Militia, Local Is Primary.

Of course, I will step down as if I even reach the ballot - I’m fully aware of how time-intensive this CSM job is, and I have no delusions of running an alliance simultaneously.

Lowsec space has not recently seen strong enough representation on the CSM panel (aside from Sugar's amazing work), and I aim to help remedy the situation. Although my primary goal is to improve FW mechanics, I further aim to improve all of lowsec, which would include drastic lifeblood updates for non-FW space. I campaign for modernization of FW, improvements to small-gang gameplay and lifestyle, balance passes to hisec and lowsec risk-vs-reward, and additional opportunities for third-party development.

A brief clarification of my main campaign points, before I go into extensive detail (please see the follow-up posts):

  • FW needs attention. As one of the largest content drivers in the game, it deserves modernization updates - and more than mere band-aids to the L4 missions. The front lines should be more explosive and dynamic, and the infamous 'semi-AFK stabbed farming' in backwater systems should have little to no impact on the warzone for either side. I also want to see empires providing support towards corps and alliances active in their respective militia.
  • Smaller gangs of players should have even more opportunities to thrive and be meaningful in lowsec. Similarly, the critical mass of lowsec alliances should be significantly smaller than where it is currently. Alliances large enough to currently control multiple regions' worth of resources should be straining themselves not to set sail for null instead of happily sitting atop an almost-incontestable lowsec moon empire. The more spread out an empire is, the easier it should be to interfere with their operations.
  • Lowsec should be more attractive for hisec bears to operate in. There's plenty of talk about "fixing" high-sec with solutions ranging from bizarre to unhelpful, however I'd prefer solutions to involve incentivizing primarily-hisec players to move towards ISK making in more dangerous territory. This includes ratting, missioning, marketeering, industry, and (yes) mining. This will have the side effect of populating non-FW regions of lowsec, as well as opening new and exciting venues for PVE vs PVP player interaction (old-school piracy, ahoy!).
  • More API endpoints for all of the above. I'm a huge API/spreadsheet nerd, and I want to see even more information available to data analysts. In addition to the changes to Lowsec, I also want more and improved tools available to 3rd party developers like zKillboard, Pirate's Little Helper, EVEmon, and Dotlan.


My interest in Lowsec is to keep the entire ecosystem healthy, not just the parts most beneficial to my militia or even my warzone. All the changes that I will bring up as a CSM delegate will be slated towards the sandbox as a whole, not just to the Amarr Militia. I’ve always taken on logistical or analytical roles in EVE, trying to find the right balance between differing opinions to find what’s most efficient, newbro-friendly, or just plain fun, and I hope to apply this experience towards bettering everything that lowsec is designed to be. I ask that you vote for me this election season, so that Faction Warfare and lowsec in general might have a candidate on CSM XI who advocates for a more vibrant and exciting sandbox environment. Please read on below, where I have gone through extensive detail outlining my goals and visions that I’d like your help in bringing to EVE Online.

TL;DR :
  • Extensive updates to Factional Warfare
  • Allow small groups to build their own castles in lowsec
  • Encourage more lowsec activities, especially in non-FW space
  • More API / CREST tools for third-party developers
  • Free small horses


Disclaimer: I'm fully aware that quite possibly nothing I'm campaigning for may even see a discussion if I'm elected. The details I provide are examples of what I would suggest at a round-table for improvements, and to give an idea of the sort of vision I have for lowsec's atmosphere in the balance of EVE. That said, a FW update is in the works to come soon(tm), and I hope to help in that discussion.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#2 - 2015-12-27 14:01:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Agnon
Updates to Factional Warfare

The current system has been around since 2012. That's coming up to almost being as old as Eve Dominion! The current system Ihub upgrades are worth even less now than they were four years ago, with their only real purpose today being their involvement in the archaic FW tier system, which ought to be revamped, if not removed entirely. These effects have also always applied to the benefit of all hostiles and unaffiliated neutral parties, which makes no sense.

Updating System Capture Mechanics
Meanwhile, the underlying mechanics in FW use almost the exact same mechanics as they did four years ago, despite numerous tech updates and balance passes. The DUST interaction leaves much to be desired for a cross-game tie-in, and could use an update. Undefended systems still require an approximate minimum of 48 hours to flip, and plexing payouts being coupled with the tier system drastically punishes the defending side. Constellation control is a hella rad idea that made its way into Aegis-sov, but it would make just as much, if not more sense in the back-and-forth tug of war in FW space. Owning a constellation or region should make defending it much easier, yet with citadels around the corner, one of the few remaining balancing factors is about to become irrelevant.

In order to address these issues, I would immediately seek conference with Team Space Glitter (yes, that’s actually their name!) to promote the following changes in a coming-due FW overhaul:

  • Remove systemwide Ihub-upgrade bonuses to neutrals.
  • Introduce System Indexes based on Ihub level, duration of ownership, and by-count system ownership in the constellation.
  • Shorten deplex timers for systems with higher System Indexes, to a peak rate of 40% shorter timers (Novices would take 6 minutes in a completely fortified system).
  • Reduce each system’s overall VP from ~3000 to a flat 2000, to balance the shorter deplex timers with needing fewer oplexes to flip undefended systems, and to make individual plex captures feel more meaningful.
  • Change the DUST modifier to adjust VP-per-plex instead of total system VP, so that the modifier always plays a factor, instead of being completely irrelevant unless the system is nearing vulnerability.
  • Change the deplex LP formula from [plexValue * contestation * 75%] to [plexValue * ceiling(10%, contestation)] for contested systems. Deplexing systems at 90% shouldn’t be penalized by a further 25% reduction in payout, while players should receive more than 10 LP for helping re-stabilize a 1% system.
  • Decouple the tier system from plex capture payouts. Plexing in tier 1 is beyond painful for any militia, and the current system heavily encourages the semi-afk, often-stabbed farming on alts that give FW such a nasty reputation.


More Carrot, Less Stick: Benefits for Serving an Empire
Moving on to quality of life improvements and reasons to continue fighting for an Empire, I aim to remedy the disparity between the massive drawbacks and minimal benefits that come with allegiance to an Empire. I'll never be able to enter Minmatar hisec again in my life - and while that's perfectly fine by me, it should follow that the Amarr Empire would offer some assistance in my fight against their enemies and against neutral interlopers, as should the other empires for their respective militias. There are incredibly few rewards to make up for the penalties that Faction Warfare players receive, which leads to a high “graduation rate” amongst older players.

Why keep fighting only one side of the war, if you could go pirate, gain access to more space, be free from the danger of eviction, and gain even more targets to shoot at?

To address this playstyle retention issue, I propose the following “Empire-provided” bonuses for groups:

  • Reduced fuel costs for structures in systems with high System Indexes*
  • Shorter repair times for structures based on System Index*
  • Reduced-cost Asset Safety*
  • Free repairs in militia-owned stations (IC24, TLF, CPROT, FDU)
  • Stat recording for plex captures, whether by character sheet API or by public CREST
  • Navy SKINs for T1 ships for that militia’s race, usable freely but only while the pilot is actively enlisted and has a high enough rank granted by his militia (Amarr Navy capital SKINs for rank-10 Divine Commodores, for example)
  • Gate gun forgiveness in friendly systems (maybe)


* Given how powerful these upgrades would be, as well as the potential abuse of “standings-shield” corps, I additionally propose a massive drawback be that any structures anchored and/or owned by a militia-affiliated entity would forbid both docking rights and service access to non-affiliates. This would prevent neutrals from anchoring structures with a FW holding corp, then granting exclusive access to the main corp or alliance, and the structure being shielded by standings from attack by an entire militia whilst gaining all the free benefits of association. In other words, you can’t shield your structures from and get the bonuses for being a part of a militia that you could otherwise aggress freely, even on the same grid.

FW needs both updates to previously existing mechanics as well as new quality-of-life updates and incentives for sticking with FW rather than “graduating”. There has not been a true FW-oriented candidate on the CSM in recent memory (Grrski Krab doesn’t count), leaving any tweaks and changes to be advocated for by the few non-null-bloc candidates. As a CSM member I plan to help bring excitement back to the FW scene.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#3 - 2015-12-27 14:02:10 UTC
Improvements to Small-Gang Lifestyles
Small, close-knit groups of players make lowsec great. Corps with thirty to forty members total, up to small alliances with not many more than just a hundred or so members, are where players feel the most at home and where they have the most fun doing whatever it is they do. Depending on the group, that might be elite micro-gang PVP like No Points Necessary, or in other cases it could be ownership of their own solar system (DBD / Giant Banana Legion in Kamela comes to mind, as does Kings of Lamaa). Part of my campaign is to promote more opportunities for small groups to be able to show their occupancy.

I'll recall a small example of how small groups can impact large ones, from a recent time in our FW warzone. My corporation is certainly on the larger side of lowsec corps, and I wouldn't call us a small group by any means. Nevertheless, just four or five devoted individuals were able to significantly impact our access to the war. During a few weeks in early October there was a group camping the most convenient gate through which our home system would access the most heated parts of the region at the time. Nothing too terribly fancy, just a simple gatecamp that would switch ship types, evade "real fights", and still blap dozens of frigates every day. Their devotion and resilience meant even our gatecamp-clearing fleets had little success in the long run, so we ended up resorting to taking a longer path to reach the Minmatar, which meant more time reshipping or in transit, which meant we were less effective at defending our systems at the time.

I want to see more of this kind of behaviour in lowsec. Small chunks of territorial ownership is super exciting - it's like a mini flag of ownership that you can plant in your own corner of the sandbox. It's not quite as grand as the looming sandcastles over in nullsec, but still, that little flag you planted is yours, and if anyone passes through your system, he ought to be quite aware of who its rightful owner is. Whether it's gatecamping or a stationcamping or being elite pirates that lock down the systems they live in, small gangs and localized pirate groups are what really make lowsec feel alive and vibrant. I envision even more cases of this becoming apparent, and for there to be additional mechanics and options available, even moreso than simply on stations/gates and in anomalies.

This brings me to the new, upcoming structures, which present powerful and exciting opportunities to reward groups that occupy (and protect) their space. It's also a perfect chance to balance how much lowsec space a single entity can sprawl around in before it reaches its critical mass. It should be infeasible for almost any alliance to quite easily defend three or more entire regions worth of resources in highly active and volatile space, preventing the locals from taking advantage of their systems' commodities (often in the form of moon goo and PI goods).

Similar to how a system's pocos are often a reflection of who "owns" a lowsec system, the local inhabitants, pirate or otherwise, should be able to leave their mark on their systems, and that includes taking ownership of valuable resources. Unfortunately, pocos are usually expensive isk-sinks, as most pirates aren't in the PI business, and they require attention to industry that often doesn't fit their playstyles. Meanwhile, moon goo is mostly inaccessible to smaller groups in its current state, as current structures are difficult to contest when the owner, perhaps eight or more jumps away, can bridge T3 fleets and triage onto. Resource structures should be significantly easier to contest or interfere with if the owners aren’t near your space. If you live in your system and can push other players out, you should be able to harvest its resources.

And for when you can’t simply evict the biggest fish in the pond, well, maybe it's time for us to see new toys with game designs similar to the Mobile Siphon Units - possibly with variants that are invisible to dscan, and which might not give away the thief’s identity.

I love the impact that small groups have in space, and structures and resource-ownership are just a couple of the many ways to further improve and reward them. More about this in my next point...

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#4 - 2015-12-27 14:03:42 UTC
Hisec & Lowsec: Risk vs Reward
For the dangerous areas of lowsec to supposedly be highly profitable, there's very little PVE that appeals to your average hisec bear. Outside of tier-4/5 FW and level 5 missions, you can make better isk/hr in either hisec or nullsec by doing pretty much any form of PVE when compared to lowsec. Outside of FW territory, there's almost no appeal to lowsec industry, and in my entire Eve career, I've only once seen a mining corp interested in operating in lowsec space (and even that was a short-lived adventure). Lowsec has always been a fantastic source of PVP, however it's simply not lucrative in the slightest when compared to other spaces.

Income for most players comes from some form of PVE (unless you station trade, sell plex, or loot more wrecks than I do). I would like to solve part of this problem by shifting the value from hisec PVE to favor the same efforts but in more dangerous space. This would solve many of the problems caused by "safe hisec". Rather than nerf the safety of hisec, I would much rather see players moving to lowsec to make their money, which is closer in line with the risk-vs-reward theme in EVE. Activities that can be run in multiple security bands should be significantly more lucrative the lower you go. Having alts in nullsec might always be one of the best ways to make isk, but hisec incursions or missions should not be the de-facto alternative, and mining should gain a mentionable middleground.

As it currently stands, the two FW warzones are undeniably the most volatile areas in lowsec. FW has players orbiting buttons, means players in space, means targets to shoot, means explosions and content. Given this nature of FW, PVP entities will likely always gravitate towards these warzones. That being said, we should find ways to re-populate non-FW lowsec, and I propose making hisec activities more profitable when done in lowsec. PVE in lowsec systems is already extremely risky, as people WILL hunt you down for running that site or mission. The rewards should be boosted as compensation.

Towards this, I propose the following updates:

  • A rebalance of ore yields*, so that lowsec ores would yield closer to a 35-40% value increase over hisec ores, and produce higher quantities of the main four hisec minerals. Right now the margin is only at ~21%, which is hardly worth the risks and downtime associated with hostiles passing through lowsec local.
  • Refining structures with bonuses to ore refining and industry costs compared to stations, with noticeably higher yields available in lowsec (of course, with the highest yields in upgraded sov-null). Perhaps the current 4% from the Intensive Refining Array could become an 6% increase, or 8% on non-compressed ores.
  • Manufacturing structures with rigs that can reduce manufacturing costs, but that are limited by the system’s security. To reduce the distance for resource hauling, these would usually be desirable close to where minerals are bought or mined, which would lead to an increase in lowsec ship and module construction.
  • Hazard pay for agents who require pilots to work in lowsec systems. The missions are often the same as those in hisec, but with significantly more PVP risk associated. Agents should reward this risk with a 2-3x increased payout (no changes being made to rat payouts). For reference, I believe mission agents currently reward between 40-60% of the ratting bounties, not counting blitzes, Blockades, or when Worlds Collide.


* This would be a perfect opportunity to see another Focus Group. Admittedly, my experience directly with mining is a bit more recent than the rest of hisec PVE.

Changes like these would pave the way for loose coalitions amongst pirates and tentative agreements between pirates and bears, in which one might gain via taxing the other for permission to operate in valuable belts or missionspaces. NPC-Null sees this fairly regularly, and even sov-null, where neighboring hostile alliances often form non-aggression or non-invasion pacts. Again with Code’s mining permit business, we can see that players with vastly differing interests will create arrangements with each-other for mutual benefit (oftentimes as payment for operational safety).

This already can and does exist in lowsec in some rare cases. When DNG lived in Egghelende (0.4sec), for a brief while a hisec mining corp paid us for mining rights in our system. Similarly, a few jumps out S I L E N T. ran a mining business and owned a few valuable moons in a pocket system that they kept locked down, and they probably did a good deal more there than I’m aware of. FW-space might never (or only rarely) see this activity, as fits for it being a heated warzone, but more interactions along these lines will bring more life and activity to non-FW lowsec.

While it’s up to players to develop these social interactions, I hope to update the lowsec environment so the interest is more favorable than it is now for the bears, that such interactions might become a more commonplace activity. Miners and missioners pairing up with pirates for protection would be a dream come true.

More bears in lowsec means more players in dangerous space. By incentivizing lowsec variants of similar activities available in hisec, non-FW space will see more players, actual piracy may see a return (not simply mere NBSI criminals), we can move towards a more balanced hisec, and, ultimately, there will be more targets for us to shoot at.

Fun fact: public hauling contracts create one of the few forms of PVE-PVP interaction other than belt-ratting that scales extremely well through all security bands. I didn’t mention this activity above, but my proposals would lead to an even greater logistical demand to, from, and throughout dangerous space.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#5 - 2015-12-27 14:04:49 UTC
Additional Endpoints for Third Party Developing

As I mentioned earlier, I'm a huge spreadsheet and API nerd. When I was one month old in Eve I was cruising through C2 wormholes shooting sleepers, and I started building spreadsheets to calculate which wormhole gasses were worth the most isk/hr to harvest. This continued on to lowsec gasses and eventually to process which boosters were the most profitable and how much a batch run would cost in various materials. Moving on, for DNG I've written a FW warzone-intel bot as well as a FW-plex counting program that our members love. I've made spreadsheets for PI and all scales of industry (t1, t2, t3d/c, capitals, boosters), as well as a spreadsheet-based XML detector against moon siphon units* (before the days of Slack and Slack-bots). Every nullsec alliance has a warnings bot for their leadership channels, and I've personally written the one that my alliance uses.

* I'd actually like to see buffs towards moon siphons and similar gameplay tools by reducing/eliminating API-based detection thereof. Surreptition, espionage, and general roguery lead to creative gameplay, especially when they go unnoticed for longer periods of time. While I support management tools while away from the desktop client, I will never suggest tools that could reduce the need to undock or that would threaten covert, clandestine activities.

With the introduction of CREST-Post endpoints, players can begin interacting with the game while away from their desktops for some of the more managerial aspects. A few additions I plan to immediately take to CCP Foxfour, if they’re not added before I’m elected:

  • Editing contact lists via CREST (for players, corporations, and alliances)
  • Sending evemails through user-created clients, possibly through CREST
  • API tie-ins with upcoming structures (intelligence arrays, contents of people’s hangars in your citadels, market orders in citadels, list of docked players, number of unique players who have clicked Show Info on your Propaganda Tower...)
  • FW plex-capture events published via CREST (live or semi-live)


Ultimately, it is my dream for anything visible from inside a station to be accessible through Crest and for more player stats to be available via the traditional XML API - though, anything that requires being in space still ought to be kept safely distant from the API. CEOs and directors everywhere would rejoice if they could check an app on their phone to make sure nobody's messing with their structures, but intel should be an even greater reward for those who log in, undock, and fly around. If you want your fancy new Gas Harvesting Array to operate at peak efficiency, you would do well to fly by it every once in awhile and check up on it to make sure nobody's tampered with it.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#6 - 2015-12-27 14:05:38 UTC
[Reserved]

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
James Clough
Space-Brewery-Association
#7 - 2015-12-27 15:04:08 UTC
+1 NIkolai would make a great CSM member

#GLITTER http://i.imgur.com/KXyHvqy.jpg
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#8 - 2015-12-27 15:05:43 UTC
From what I can tell, you offer a pretty reasonable stance on lowsec and FW.
MItchell Jensen
The Black Widow Company.
#9 - 2015-12-27 15:35:02 UTC
Can confirm that this guy has his head on straight and he welcomes work not just to get it done but because he wants to make it more enjoyable for everyone


Can I have my family back now? Please?

CCP Dropbear: rofl

edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
Bardam
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#10 - 2015-12-27 16:54:01 UTC
If you guys knew about half the cool **** Nik has developed for us he would have been poached long ago. Nik is soft spoken but assured, doesn't complain but encourages and instructs, and aside from not liking Star Wars in general he's an all around great guy.

+1
Tujiko Noriko
Dirt 'n' Glitter
Local Is Primary
#11 - 2015-12-27 16:57:48 UTC
You've got DnG and the rest of the Amarr Militia votebrigade on your side, hopefully other lowsec dwellers will pile in, you deserve it.

Also I see you didn't take a stance on goodposting. As a CSM member, can we expect frequent dank memes from you on r/eve?
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#12 - 2015-12-27 17:04:44 UTC
Some nice ideas here. I agree that the time it takes to capture a system is way too long. When inferno came out they reduced the amount of vp per plex to 1/5 of what it was. So it took much longer to capture a system. That's one of the reasons there were such huge fights right before inferno hit. So your request to reduce the amount to 2/3 the time is really pretty modest.

With respect to some of your points I think you may be emulating aegis sov. Indexes and having small groups grab space and own space. I don't mean this in a bad way because I happen to think aegis sov is fantastic and that is why I am currently in a small alliance that holds a few systems in null. But I think EVE should offer more choices and FW should go in a different direction. The whole ratting to help hold space/indexes is ok for null sec, but I would be disappointed to see that in FW. The game would be too homogeneous. I would just say that null sec is already a great place for small groups to hold a few systems to call their own.

IMO many people view faction war sov as a joke because it involves alts in empty frigates orbitting buttons. That game mechanic is not fun. CCP said they would do 2 things to change this years ago:

1) Better intel tools about when and where plexes are being taken hopefully so they can be defended real time.

2) Timer rollbacks.

These changes were widely supported by players. But ccp seems to just have dropped the ball on these ideas and in the last csm meeting neither was even mentioned.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6082412#post6082412


Im afraid fw sov will never really keep lots of players long term unless ccp changes it so alts rabbit plexing don't have such a big impact. The rest of the changes can only be considered fluff until the 2 core changes listed above are made.


As for making the rest of low sec profitable consider having all low sec agents offer faction war style missions as an option. They are undoubtedly great ways for people to make isk in low sec if they are do some homework on selling lp. They might be balanced now that ccp added some webbing.


Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Kaea Astridsson
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#13 - 2015-12-27 18:15:52 UTC
What are your opinion toward current standing mechanics and penalties involved in shooting friendly milita? FW players exclusion from tactics such as smartbombing (without being very smart about where those bombs go off).

Get on Comms, or die typing.
Nikolai Agnon
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#14 - 2015-12-27 18:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Agnon
Kaea Astridsson wrote:
What are your opinion toward current standing mechanics and penalties involved in shooting friendly milita? FW players exclusion from tactics such as smartbombing (without being very smart about where those bombs go off).


The standings penalties don't really do what they're supposed to. As it stands, any aggression against a militiaman can hurt your standings, including simple things like a smartbomb hitting someone's drones, whereas actual awoxing never really gets impacted. In Burn Huola 1, there was a guy in Amarr who would fly Catalysts and go after shiny ships, and there was nothing we could do but file tickets or lose standings. Inter-alliance thunderdomes and other such activities are also difficult if a stray volley could kick somebody from the militia.

For reference for those not in FW, you must have positive standings with your empire's faction in order to be in their militia. Coupled with the penalty incurred for aggressing militiamen, there are several tactics that are perfectly valid in other PVP venues, but cannot be attempted by FW groups because they would be kicked out of the militia, including pipebombing or scramming certain allies to hold them still during a micro jump field.

I personally feel the players should be in charge of policing each-other, not standings. Honest accidents are usually reimbursed, and honest grievances are usually dealt with through words or wardecs. I think we all appreciate the reasoning for why the standings penalty is in place, but its flaws limit valid gameplay, and I feel it should be either removed or at least adjusted.

Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#15 - 2015-12-27 19:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
i wish you the best of luck and you have my vote for sure.

i only wanted to add that it is in my opinion very risky to add new features on top of FW without fixing core issues of the underlying mechanics. For example one thing you suggest are shorter deplex timers based on "system indexes". This alone could break FW if it is not implemented in conjunction with rollbacks. Bot-like deplex alts already respawn in the same system and deplex in empty hulls as we speak. And a 0 day trial alt can o-plex novice and small plexes without big issues due to the increased starter SP. There should be no sov progression if the offender/defender runs away (nullsec has it already). Rollbacks would largely fix or at least mitigate it.

that being said, i hope you make it in ;)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
DanJoe Solette
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#16 - 2015-12-27 23:27:24 UTC
you got my vote :")

Party all the time!
Techno36
Khanid Propulsion Systems
Local Is Primary
#17 - 2015-12-28 00:29:32 UTC
+1
Desiderya
Blue Canary
Watch This
#18 - 2015-12-28 12:03:08 UTC
You have my axe.

Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
Nova Lyon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-12-28 13:22:06 UTC
hella rad

+1
PlantythePottedPlant
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#20 - 2015-12-28 23:06:16 UTC
Despite DNG's unhealthy obsession with Kesha over the true lord and savior of Eve, Nicolas Cage, Nikolai has my vote.
12Next page