These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM Minutes on Faction Warfare
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#381 - 2012-01-26 21:22:48 UTC
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Quote:
The issue is that they can be, and are farmed by people who contribute nothing to FW as a whole.


This.

So, how do you make something rewarding that is tied to PVP, not PVE? Because if it is PVE it will be farmed by those who do not contribute to FW as a whole. And it needs a reward to encourage people to do it, and to finance the losses.

If the rewards at tied to pure PVP - just shooting people - it is easy to exploit. You just create an account in the opposing militia and shoot them over and over. So the reward cannot be linked to that.

So the question is, how do you create a system that is not easy to exploit, has ISK rewards, and contributes to FW?


I've never understood this argument. There has to be a happy medium between making it akin to the insurance scams of old, and where it is now, which is basically worthless LP payouts for killing WTs. Surely we can find a payout that is good enough for people who kill ships, but doesn't make getting an alt in a ship blown up over and over again to magically generate isk. We could eschew LP altogether and make it a straight up isk bounty, like capturing ships in the 18th Century. Lets say you get half the hull value of the ship you kill in isk, everytime you kill one. Maybe split that between all involved parties, or not. There's lots of ways to combat alt scamming.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#382 - 2012-01-26 21:36:04 UTC
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Quote:
The issue is that they can be, and are farmed by people who contribute nothing to FW as a whole.


This.

So, how do you make something rewarding that is tied to PVP, not PVE? Because if it is PVE it will be farmed by those who do not contribute to FW as a whole. And it needs a reward to encourage people to do it, and to finance the losses.

If the rewards at tied to pure PVP - just shooting people - it is easy to exploit. You just create an account in the opposing militia and shoot them over and over. So the reward cannot be linked to that.

So the question is, how do you create a system that is not easy to exploit, has ISK rewards, and contributes to FW?


I've never understood this argument. There has to be a happy medium between making it akin to the insurance scams of old, and where it is now, which is basically worthless LP payouts for killing WTs. Surely we can find a payout that is good enough for people who kill ships, but doesn't make getting an alt in a ship blown up over and over again to magically generate isk. We could eschew LP altogether and make it a straight up isk bounty, like capturing ships in the 18th Century. Lets say you get half the hull value of the ship you kill in isk, everytime you kill one. Maybe split that between all involved parties, or not. There's lots of ways to combat alt scamming.



I think overall your right they can do a bit more. But the margins are still pretty tight with t1 fully insured hulls.

As to the value of the other non vanilla t1 ships - that can get a bit tricky to calculate what half "the value" is.

Often the vaue of the hull is very little of the overall loss. As for valuing the mods I think that would be a larger undertaking. Although it would help with the whole bounty system too. But anyway when you scoop the loot you get half the value already.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#383 - 2012-01-26 23:47:06 UTC
@Julius

Because it needs to be a lot more than half the value of the hulls!

I am a fairly active FWer. I could easily make 1 billion a month running missions.

Half the value of the hulls I kill in a month, (shared amongst everyone on the killmails?!) would be nothing compared.
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2012-01-27 00:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Julius Foederatus
We can change the payouts for plexes and system capture (or create them in this case), you don't have to get all your income from shooting other militiamen. The whole point is that you get more than the piddly ass amount you do now. Half the hull value of an abbadon or a t3 is nothing to scoff at. It doesn't have to be enough by itself, it just has to supplement the main income, which should come from participating in occupancy battles.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#385 - 2012-01-27 00:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cearain wrote:

As for me I am not even claiming to express the views of current fw participants. I am posting views of what would make fw worth doing, *for me.* I think that is fine, and likely what ccp wants to hear.


And that's precisely what needs to happen. I think one of the biggest barriers to cooperation has simply been the way we interpret each other's language.

Many of us say "The real issue here is...." instead of "One of the main issues here is...."

The result is threads like this where we have have some heated debates that can get confrontational, even though each person is suggesting an idea with substantial merit.

We all just need to give each other the benefit of the doubt and realize that most of these ideas are excellent things for CCP to investigate - whether they are plexes, missions, occupancy rewards, NPC AI, LP reward placement, etc.

This has been why my strategy has been to maintain the list the top issues so that CCP understands that there is a multitude of valid ways they could enhance the FW system. That way, everyone in here that feels strongly one way or another whether its about missions, plexes, consequences, or rewards - ends up contributing to the overall message.

While we bicker away in the forums the CSM and CCP continue to discuss a radically different purpose for Faction Warfare. If we can hold off the animosity for long enough to deliver the unified message that we are NOT in Faction Warfare to be farmed up to 0.0 and that we are here for small-scale, frequent PvP - than we have achieved a real victory worth celebrating.

I don't think the developers are incompetent and need us to spoon-feed them perfect fixes. (I'm sure I'll be flamed for that but whatever.) I think they are being misdirected by the council, which has far greater sway in the wake of Crucible than ever before. The difference is critical.

If we want to be effective in changing their minds, we have stop worrying about being right when we argue amongst ourselves. We should by all means continue the discussion, I just cant stress the urgency of tolerance and respect above all.

I will certainly try my best to be a better example in this regard.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Of Essence
#386 - 2012-01-27 01:10:31 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[quote=Cearain]
If we can hold off the animosity for long enough to deliver the unified message that we are NOT in Faction Warfare to be farmed up to 0.0 and that we are here for small-scale, frequent PvP - than we have achieved a real victory worth celebrating.


How do you propose we deliver said message?

(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#387 - 2012-01-27 04:19:11 UTC
chatgris wrote:

How do you propose we deliver said message?


Working on that. More to come... Cool

Quote:
(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).


Yes I know, lesson learned.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Damar Rocarion
Nasranite Watch
#388 - 2012-01-27 05:05:43 UTC
chatgris wrote:
(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).


And a r..ard whose corp members (with his own approval) are part of evemail spamming, convoing hostile FC's durng fights and other welll documented shenigans once again attempts to play "All Gallente players are totally cool and mature" card...
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2012-01-27 06:57:17 UTC
Damar Rocarion wrote:
chatgris wrote:
(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).


And a r..ard whose corp members (with his own approval) are part of evemail spamming, convoing hostile FC's durng fights and other welll documented shenigans once again attempts to play "All Gallente players are totally cool and mature" card...


Wait. We have been approved for shenanigans? When was there approval for shenanigans?

HOW DID I MISS APPROVAL FOR SHENANIGANS?!?!

I knew there was something wrong with this lousy excuse for a corp.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#390 - 2012-01-27 08:17:53 UTC
Hrett wrote:
Damar Rocarion wrote:
chatgris wrote:
(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).


And a r..ard whose corp members (with his own approval) are part of evemail spamming, convoing hostile FC's durng fights and other welll documented shenigans once again attempts to play "All Gallente players are totally cool and mature" card...


Wait. We have been approved for shenanigans? When was there approval for shenanigans?

HOW DID I MISS APPROVAL FOR SHENANIGANS?!?!

I knew there was something wrong with this lousy excuse for a corp.


Gallente players are well known clowns, they have circus out there.
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#391 - 2012-01-27 08:35:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rel'k Bloodlor
I Feel that sovereignty like control of space will lead to problems with non-faction war players.
That a simpler way would be to keep us out of each others faction stations and to alow the faction corp we each belong to fire station guns at the other side.
That simpler localized passive in space benefits would suit us all better.
That missions should be the least profitable part of FW interaction.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#392 - 2012-01-27 10:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Hidden Snake
Bad Messenger wrote:
Hrett wrote:
Damar Rocarion wrote:
chatgris wrote:
(By the way, there's a handful of (ex)fw people here who will continue animosity no matter what, learn who they are and ignore them and these threads will go a lot smoother).


And a r..ard whose corp members (with his own approval) are part of evemail spamming, convoing hostile FC's durng fights and other welll documented shenigans once again attempts to play "All Gallente players are totally cool and mature" card...


Wait. We have been approved for shenanigans? When was there approval for shenanigans?

HOW DID I MISS APPROVAL FOR SHENANIGANS?!?!

I knew there was something wrong with this lousy excuse for a corp.


Gallente players are well known clowns, they have circus out there.


This ... I am patiently reporting things i am target of too .... And patiently reading ccps response of ignorance.

I would say maturity is weak on galente side .... Even with mature pilots.

But well ... Frog Kiill is best response and tears in local is best cure ;)


On the other hand some gals have bright ideas about fw/lowsec changes .....
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#393 - 2012-01-27 10:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rel'k Bloodlor
Damar and Hiddin snake you relize if this is a problem the game has a anti spam devise built in right?
Just jam your CSPA charge to over 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And make them pay hard cash for the privlage of calling you names.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
Shaalira D'arc
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2012-01-27 16:04:16 UTC
Now now, gents. Don't let Damar's affection for Chatgris derail the conversation. There's an entire threadnaught on the Caldari Militia to air your kinky Frog-on-Squid thoughts.

On topic, if CCP isn't forthcoming with their overall goals and vision with FW then perhaps we should voice what we want it to be. Although there are a multitude of differing opinions on how to accomplish this, what I've gathered from the many posts here is that FW should be about:

1) PvP, first and foremost. Activities, rewards and mechanics should revolve around shooting other players in the face.

2) Opportunities for small gang warfare. With the natural tendency to congregate into blobs, FW pilots want a system that encourages and rewards smaller-scale combat. Flying solo should be viable and fun.

3) Rewards to sustain PvP. Losing ships in constant combat can be a costly to the player wallet. FW players appreciate having a lucrative income source so that they can focus on the pew-pew. At the same time, it's currently far too easy to participate in this income stream without engaging in PvP at all.

4) Victory/Defeat Making a Difference. Flipping colored dots on the map is good for bragging rights (and, given how people seek and collect killmails, bragging rights is a big part of PvP in this game). That said, players want something more if they're going to spend a big chunk of their time fighting over occupancy. Either getting paid or affecting other players' activity in a real way seems to be key to this.

There are also some things that FW players don't want:

- Drama llamas. The idea of foisting CSM popularity contests and bloc politics on the community received some harsh condemnation.

- Boring ol' structure bashing. The suggestion that we might have our system tied in with dullsec sovereignty mechanics made many a pilot groan. Bunker and POCO bashes are already tiresome as is.

- Dismissive treatment of FW as a 'stepping stone' towards other EVE activities. Many of us see FW as their preferred endgame, CCP, so don't trivialize it.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#395 - 2012-01-27 16:40:47 UTC
Very well put, Shaalira. I would agree that's a pretty accurate description of what we'd like to see and why we're concerned with the current direction of FW as laid out by CCP and the CSM.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#396 - 2012-01-27 16:56:18 UTC
Agreed.

A good set of points to aim for!
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#397 - 2012-01-27 20:56:37 UTC
Shaalira D'arc wrote:
Now now, gents. Don't let Damar's affection for Chatgris derail the conversation. There's an entire threadnaught on the Caldari Militia to air your kinky Frog-on-Squid thoughts.

On topic, if CCP isn't forthcoming with their overall goals and vision with FW then perhaps we should voice what we want it to be. Although there are a multitude of differing opinions on how to accomplish this, what I've gathered from the many posts here is that FW should be about:

1) PvP, first and foremost. Activities, rewards and mechanics should revolve around shooting other players in the face.

2) Opportunities for small gang warfare. With the natural tendency to congregate into blobs, FW pilots want a system that encourages and rewards smaller-scale combat. Flying solo should be viable and fun.

3) Rewards to sustain PvP. Losing ships in constant combat can be a costly to the player wallet. FW players appreciate having a lucrative income source so that they can focus on the pew-pew. At the same time, it's currently far too easy to participate in this income stream without engaging in PvP at all.

4) Victory/Defeat Making a Difference. Flipping colored dots on the map is good for bragging rights (and, given how people seek and collect killmails, bragging rights is a big part of PvP in this game). That said, players want something more if they're going to spend a big chunk of their time fighting over occupancy. Either getting paid or affecting other players' activity in a real way seems to be key to this.

There are also some things that FW players don't want:

- Drama llamas. The idea of foisting CSM popularity contests and bloc politics on the community received some harsh condemnation.

- Boring ol' structure bashing. The suggestion that we might have our system tied in with dullsec sovereignty mechanics made many a pilot groan. Bunker and POCO bashes are already tiresome as is.

- Dismissive treatment of FW as a 'stepping stone' towards other EVE activities. Many of us see FW as their preferred endgame, CCP, so don't trivialize it.


I support this message, one thing we may want to fight off (depending on the community) is to prevent alliances (get rid of their patch for it) If we let 0.0 alliances in FW as we know it will go away.

Id rather see unofficial alliances occur (usually these are the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Having a group of players friend PL is not what we want for FW, and hence why most people in FW are in FW

amiright?



P.S. Looking for a squid friend to help increase my calamari standings so I can come and pew for the squids. Plz pm

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#398 - 2012-01-27 22:14:57 UTC
[quote=BolsterBomb]
I support this message, one thing we may want to fight off (depending on the community) is to prevent alliances (get rid of their patch for it) If we let 0.0 alliances in FW as we know it will go away.
/quote]

Well, "they're here" whether we like it or not, the patch is live, and as far as I know FW still exists. I haven't heard of an Alliance yet that has signed up, or an Alliance formed from within Faction Warfare corps.

Does anyone have any field reports as to any Alliances that have applied and enlisted yet?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#399 - 2012-01-27 23:38:43 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[quote=BolsterBomb]
I support this message, one thing we may want to fight off (depending on the community) is to prevent alliances (get rid of their patch for it) If we let 0.0 alliances in FW as we know it will go away.
/quote]

Well, "they're here" whether we like it or not, the patch is live, and as far as I know FW still exists. I haven't heard of an Alliance yet that has signed up, or an Alliance formed from within Faction Warfare corps.

Does anyone have any field reports as to any Alliances that have applied and enlisted yet?


why should they?
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#400 - 2012-01-27 23:55:34 UTC
Bad Messenger wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
[quote=BolsterBomb]
I support this message, one thing we may want to fight off (depending on the community) is to prevent alliances (get rid of their patch for it) If we let 0.0 alliances in FW as we know it will go away.
/quote]

Well, "they're here" whether we like it or not, the patch is live, and as far as I know FW still exists. I haven't heard of an Alliance yet that has signed up, or an Alliance formed from within Faction Warfare corps.

Does anyone have any field reports as to any Alliances that have applied and enlisted yet?


why should they?


There really isnt a lot of good reasons. that was my point. Any of the alliances that wanted to kill FW pilots have already come and done so, and anyone wanting mission access can just use an alt.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary