These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Events and Gatherings Archive

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest 2012 Breaking News: Factional Warfare

First post
Author
Adunh Slavy
#61 - 2012-03-25 06:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
OK, now I understand the motivation behind DC's moving into FW having watched that interview on topten ... err, tenton rather

Instead of moving data cores to FW, add something else to the build / invention process using the same free market mechanic.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Lukas Rox
Aideron Technologies
#62 - 2012-03-25 08:31:04 UTC
I dislike the idea of FW being the main source of Datacores for T2. Datacores are not an ISK faucet! You don't get ISK from the R&D agents, you get Datacores. And Datacores are materials, not ISK. You can sell them for ISK, yes. But you can also use them for invention.

From RP point of view, its the industrialists who should be scientists as well. From RL point of view, most pilots who fly PVP are not interested in Industry, so Datacores will not be high on their list of interest if they can sell Navy Domis and Navy Scorps. There is a risk of a serious increase in t2 prices, fuelling the inflation.

MAYBE a solution here would be introduction of Level 5 R&D agents available solely for pilots who participate in FW?

Everything else looks quite solid, enough to get me involved in Gallente militia again. I don't mind being unable to dock in Jita, as I have an alt there (most players do).

Proud developer of LMeve: Industry Contribution and Mass Production Tracker: https://github.com/roxlukas/lmeve | Blogging about EVE on http://pozniak.pl/wp/

zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
#63 - 2012-03-25 09:29:24 UTC
Fill disclosure from me.

Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.

And data cores certainly are isk faucets.
Nephilim Xeno
ZERO HEAVY INDUSTRIES
#64 - 2012-03-25 12:01:08 UTC
I don't think denying docking access to all stations is a really good idea to promote fights in FW. It might give you a reason to plex but that does not change the fact that plexing mostly sucks atm. Uness plexing gets a complete overhaul or redesign this is a no go imo. It will just drive people away from FW in the long run

First and foremost before FW LP-Stores are improved, the missions have to be changed to make it absolutly impossible to do them in stealth bombers!!! Even if you have an alt speedtanking. Maybe add some Spider drones. Also NPCs in the plexes should be equal in tank and dmg across all 4 militas. Uniform damage distribution and similar turret tracking and missle spams no matter what faction. In exchange remove all EW from the plex rats
Also give every Mission a fail objective that the hostile milita can do to make the mission fail. Atm the only way to keep enemies from completing the mission is to camp it non stop for 8 hours..
If people want their FW LP they should be ready to fight for them
I am not sure if datacores are the best way to improve the FW store. Decryptors might be a better idea and whould help invention more, especially ship invention which has always a hard time to compete with BPOs
If FW stores had decent stuff it would definalty be an isk sink BUT the biggest issue of the stores are the necessary tags that you need and their extremy unequal distribution among the npcs you kill. Very few tags are actually usefull and they are quite rare. Maybe give us the option to convert tags into some kind of FW currency that together with LP and isk is used to get items in the store. Also give the FW stores all BPC copies of their faction. ( I want navy baddons in the lp store!

Making occupancy mean something is a good thing in general BUT it's importand that it scales well for the loosing side, otherwise people will just join the winning side and the other side will just quit due to facing insane odds

It's not easy but definalty possible. Maybe scale rewards with something like (number of your miltia real accounts/number of hostile milita real account) * BaseRewar

Also a milita needs some kind of council or leadership that can remove obvious spies from their milita

Make Fleet adverts better so i can allow all players from my milita to join and only disallow the known spies that i have set to -5 or -10 because atm this is not possible with the fleet finder

I still have a lot of ideas to improve FW but its just too much to write them all down

Just keep 1 thing in mind. FW players do not want FW to be anything like 0.0. We don't want blob warfare. We don't want CTA's or the necessity for them. We dont want supercapital blobs to ruin our fun. FW should not be like "I have to login and play otherwise we are going to loose the System and are screwed :(" but more like "I want to login because there is a System to fight over and there is a lot of fun to be had! :)"
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#65 - 2012-03-25 13:48:33 UTC
zero2espect wrote:
Fill disclosure from me.

Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.

And data cores certainly are isk faucets.


No, they're not ISK faucets - full stop. They are a datacore (materials / item) faucet, but those only have value because other players agree to buy them at a particular price point. You can't sell them to NPCs, therefore you cannot use them to create ISK out of thin air.

The simple rules for what is an ISK faucet vs sink:

- If the ISK moves from your account into another player's account, it is neither a faucet or sink.
- If the ISK moves from your account into an NPC's account (removing it from circulation), it is a sink.
- If the ISK moves from an NPC's wallet into yours (bounties, NPC buy orders, mission rewards), it's a faucet.
zero2espect
Space-Brewery-Association
#66 - 2012-03-25 14:01:44 UTC
Exactly. You so nothing except train skills, once. And npc corps give you something that is converted to isk (either directly our indirectly). e.g. faucet. Using the direct ccp definition it is a mission reward.

I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend. Its basic common sense.
Andrea Griffin
#67 - 2012-03-25 14:31:12 UTC
Muad 'dib wrote:
please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done.
I agree that we should not be locked out of stations, but for a different reason. Being locked out of stations in enemy territory will reduce the amount of available PvP and make people more risk averse.

Why, do you ask?

Because if this change is implemented and you lose a ship, you'll be forced to fly to non-enemy space in order to re-ship. That will SUCK and make people more risk averse - not because they'll lose their ship, but because they might have to go 10 jumps out in order to get something new to fly.

Also, what happens to all my assets currently in enemy territory, or assets in a system when occupancy changes? Or I'm out on a roam in enemy territory but it's time for me to log - I can't dock up? Personally I don't mind logging off in space, I do it all the time (I prefer it to stations), but a lot of people will not like that at all.

No thank you. This would be a terrible move for the more casual nature of FW.

If you want to do something with the stations, then make repair services cost more, have a very high market transaction tax, whatever - but don't restrict docking.

Unless - and this is a big unless that I would love to see - you also make this consistent with criminals. Criminals -5 and below should also not be able to dock in empire stations. However, to balance this, start adding pirate stations throughout lowsec which will allow anyone to dock. Complete with mission agents.

This would make sense on MANY levels (why does any empire corporation allow criminals to dock anyway), make lowsec attractive (people can run pirate missions without dealing with nullsec), and pave the way for future pirate involvement in faction warfare.
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#68 - 2012-03-25 15:14:49 UTC
Andrea Griffin wrote:
Muad 'dib wrote:
please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done.
I agree that we should not be locked out of stations, but for a different reason. Being locked out of stations in enemy territory will reduce the amount of available PvP and make people more risk averse.

Why, do you ask?

Because if this change is implemented and you lose a ship, you'll be forced to fly to non-enemy space in order to re-ship. That will SUCK and make people more risk averse - not because they'll lose their ship, but because they might have to go 10 jumps out in order to get something new to fly.

Also, what happens to all my assets currently in enemy territory, or assets in a system when occupancy changes? Or I'm out on a roam in enemy territory but it's time for me to log - I can't dock up? Personally I don't mind logging off in space, I do it all the time (I prefer it to stations), but a lot of people will not like that at all.

No thank you. This would be a terrible move for the more casual nature of FW.

If you want to do something with the stations, then make repair services cost more, have a very high market transaction tax, whatever - but don't restrict docking.


This, don't deny docking.. I haven't been in FW for ages but when I was, all the fun was basing deep in the enemy systems and having reinforcements close by. This will definitely not make FW less blobby, at least.
Muad 'dib
The Nine Nine
#69 - 2012-03-25 18:47:45 UTC
I thought the vision for FW was a place for casual smaller gang pvp, for the weekend warrior, a fun thing anyone can do with one of their char slots, right?

If you like to fly more than a rifter and pew more than once a week, you need hauler alts to fetch stuff in enemy high sec, if you have bad sec (from low sec defense) perhaps another one also to fly what you can fly to fly it out if your hauler cant haul etc

This is getting a bit silly with the sov stuff.

Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.

everyone knows pvp in eve, if it lasts more than a few minutes out of your hours online you are lucky. right? :P

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Adunh Slavy
#70 - 2012-03-25 19:09:04 UTC
zero2espect wrote:
Fill disclosure from me.

Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.

And data cores certainly are isk faucets.


A faucet is a game mechainc that introduces something to the game world, a sink is something that takes away from the game world.

An ISK faucet introduces ISK. A mineral faucet introduces minerals. Faucet is the noun, "ISK" or "Mineral" are attributive nouns, they define the type of faucet. R&D agents are data core faucets. Rat bounties are ISK faucets.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

uredo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2012-03-25 19:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: uredo
Yes to LP for kills (provided it cant be exploited by killing alts)
Yes to LP for plexes
Yes to less LP for missioning, and to balancing the missions properly (i.e no more stealth bombers farming)

Yes to things that provide lots of good fights and some isk to fund them




No to spending LP on system upgrades and cyno jammers
No to station lockouts

No to 0.0 sov-lite

And please can the Market Geeks stop being the class nerd. Datacores may not be literally an ISK faucet, but they certainly are passive income, and that is plainly what was meant.
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Villore Accords
#72 - 2012-03-25 21:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: chatgris
Julius Foederatus wrote:
I don't see it as that big a deal honestly. It's not like you're pushed out of your area completely, you can always fall back to high sec or elsewhere and continue to fight. You can never be fully pushed out of the warzone. Not to mention it also serves the function of establishing an organic frontline, since you won't be able to maintain operations too far from your own space due to logistics and enemy reinforcements.


You can't really fall back to high sec if you're perma flashy.

Muad 'dib wrote:
Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.


This.

I play FW instead of null sec because I like an environment I can go off on my own and do something, where I don't have to cooperate with a large organization to go out and get some pew pew. Instead, I can just place myself down anywhere in lowsec and get some pew pew when rl permits me to log in. One place getting too blobby? Move somewhere else. Plexes can also shave down the size of the blob by restricting combat to a particular ship type, when there is some reason for people to want to run them.

These FW changes with station docking lockouts pretty much makes piracy the only option left for the independent player. The "rewards" seem to be "farm plexes so that you can later farm missions with greater payout". Seriously? My reward for farming is that I can farm some more?!?!?

What's suggested here is an organized style of play, much like nullsec. I chose FW due to it's differences from nullsec, no centralized organization, no requirement to "have" to defend something when I have rl to attend to, and especially the ability for me to not play for weeks and come back and everything is still in my station waiting for me to play with it.

Yes for carrots in FW, no to sticks.
Atraxerxes
22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
#73 - 2012-03-25 22:35:24 UTC
One Question.

If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?



Yes. We're back and actively recruiting your spy alts.

AX

Death is the Road to Awe

chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Villore Accords
#74 - 2012-03-25 23:26:10 UTC
Atraxerxes wrote:
One Question.

If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?



Yes. We're back and actively recruiting your spy alts.

AX


No because you will have failed to meet some arbitrary condition that had nothing to do with you taking all systems :)
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#75 - 2012-03-26 00:14:07 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:


The simple rules for what is an ISK faucet vs sink:

- If the ISK moves from your account into another player's account, it is neither a faucet or sink.
- If the ISK moves from your account into an NPC's account (removing it from circulation), it is a sink.
- If the ISK moves from an NPC's wallet into yours (bounties, NPC buy orders, mission rewards), it's a faucet.



Thanks Bob, this is correct.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#76 - 2012-03-26 00:23:40 UTC
uredo wrote:


Yes to LP for kills (provided it cant be exploited by killing alts)

Yes to LP for plexes

Yes to less LP for missioning, and to balancing the missions properly (i.e no more stealth bombers farming)

Yes to things that provide lots of good fights and some isk to fund them

No to spending LP on system upgrades and cyno jammers

No to station lockouts

No to 0.0 sov-lite



This is by far the overwhelming message I am hearing from players.

The cyno jammers are station lockouts are controversial, they COULD have tremendous value if implemented correctly, this is why I advocate CCP focus on the "Yes" Items above, make sure those make it in first, and than focus the rest of their time on balancing the cyno jammer / station lockout issue and not ******* that up, and saving themselves the wasted effort of complicated LP upgrades to systems and sov-lite stuff.

I think the infrastructure stuff has a little merit if tweaked, but only if its automated and tied to Victory Points, so that the process flows easier and only requires that Faction Warfare pilots fight each other, not have to sacrifice LP and cut into their ship replacement funds. We need that isk income to keep fighting.

I also don't like them calling this "sov" instead of occupancy, I think occupancy fits the lore better and discourages them from "streamlining" 0.0 and FW gameplay, which is something I think we've all universally agreed is a bad bad move. The justification that calling this Sov "increases perceived value" is a really weak argument for something that opens the door to a meshing of two independent game play styles.

Uredo's list is the nuts of bolts of what the community reaction has been and what I'm gathering at the moment, keep the feedback coming strong. The more voices that speak up the greater influence we have here. I'm going to be doing a lot of writing / collating of posts this week, so that when I take office on April 4 I can immediately start working with the developers to find out precisely what we can change / prevent here and what is too late.

Nice work everyone, keep it up!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Annah Kitheran
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#77 - 2012-03-26 11:12:45 UTC
Nephilim Xeno wrote:
the missions have to be changed to make it absolutly impossible to do them in stealth bombers!!!.


I agree wholeheartedly to be honest. The general idea of FW missions seems to be to bring in more targets albeit perhaps helpless carebear targets. The issue is simple, it's next to zero risk if you know what you are doing. I'm reasonably confident I could announce my mission systems in amarr militia chat and the worst anyone would do to me was delay me a couple of hours. Catching a bomber pilot in lowsec who doesn't want to be caught (and lets be fair what does a bomber want to be caught by anyway?) is next to impossible barring pretty elementary piloting error. I'm not saying it can't happen or even doesn't happen but it's certainly not likely enough to warrant hunting them in most cases.
The only even close to reliable way I have seen in terms of PvPing FW mission runners is the wonderful rocket launcher fit stealth bombers. To be honest props to them they get some good kills but I'm pretty certain they miss a lot more than they hit and the fact that the most reliable way to get PvP out of this feature is in essence a trollfit is for me at least slightly telling.

Nephilim Xeno wrote:
Making occupancy mean something is a good thing in general BUT it's importand that it scales well for the loosing side, otherwise people will just join the winning side and the other side will just quit due to facing insane odds


To a point certainly. FW is probably amongst the longest running active conflicts in EVE, most other wars reach a natural end point: ransom paid, hostile alliance failcascades, no targets left cba paying the wardec fee. It's a difficult balance to strike once ANY consequences are added to be honest but I will say I am not excessively worried about either side "losing" in light of the new lo-sec ideas thrown around at fanfest also. If you can't reasonably fight the WTs (either because they are not present or they are too numerous/skilled/scary etc.) then piracy is going to be an awful lot less problematic with the lessening hi-sec restrictions and easier sec recovery.

Nephilim Xeno wrote:
Maybe scale rewards


Surely market forces will do this anyway? If there are less LP on the market then less navy geddons/fleet phoons/navy scorps/navy dominixes will be being listed so prices will climb as the stockpiles run out...

Nephilim Xeno wrote:
Also a milita needs some kind of council or leadership that can remove obvious spies from their milita


Would be wonderful if potentially problematic and also hugely abusable. I do however think the spy problem is massively overblown sometimes. A lot of the time fleet movements (and to a lesser extend compositions) can be anticipated simply because we've all flown against or with or round each other for in many cases two or three years, people are predictable whether they mean to be or not...

Nephilim Xeno wrote:
Make Fleet adverts better so i can allow all players from my milita to join and only disallow the known spies that i have set to -5 or -10 because atm this is not possible with the fleet finder


This would be amazing and do wonders for intercorp co-operation in militia.
Annah Kitheran
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#78 - 2012-03-26 11:13:03 UTC
Nephilim Xeno wrote:
FW players do not want FW to be anything like 0.0. We don't want blob warfare. We don't want CTA's or the necessity for them. We dont want supercapital blobs to ruin our fun. FW should not be like "I have to login and play otherwise we are going to loose the System and are screwed :(" but more like "I want to login because there is a System to fight over and there is a lot of fun to be had! :)"


I'll be unpopular and say I could live with sov warfare locking folks out of stations. Providing a few things; firstly it needs to take longer, I recall a month or so back Vard flipped twice in 23 hours, this is daft pure and simple. Not sure how you would go about changing this, twice as many plexes would I think break even the most hardened of pilots and nobody wants alarm clock ops in FW so I'm hesitant to start screaming for RF timers. Secondly I think there needs to potentially be some cooldown for evaccing ships/assets perhaps? I'm really unsure...
On the other hand it would end station game PvP in FW which I would love because station ring PvP is a personal bugbear of mine. It would also force fights towards the frontlines (15 jumps into enemy lowsec will be awkward for reships and repairs so I suspect folks will be better off plexing closer to home) without ruining the sandbox and saying “no you cannot attack here, I don't care how clever your plan is”.

Muad'dib wrote:
Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.


This is also true and I think we can at least potentially have the best of both worlds IF the sov system is set up to work with that.

At present in the minmatar/amarr WZ what will happen if these changes come in most likely is the off TZs will plex each others home systems as a troll (Minnie USTZ will probably flip Kourm/Kam/Auga Amarr USTZ will flip Arzad/Vard) and everyone will wake up after a night's sleep unable to redock into their PvP hangars.

Pure and simple I don't think this is acceptable so either the sov consequences need to be rethought heavily *or* they need to give us a sov system that works. Personally I think implementing a working sov system is needed *before* you tack on a series of consequences. Regardless what CCP may think the current sov system is far from perfect, it is a marked improvement on the previous iteration for certain but it is certainly not resilient enough for consequences at present. A large portion of the balancing forces involved in the fun pewpew we are having plexing at the moment is that for many FW pilots it is simply optional so why bother, if you get all sides plexing at full strength it will break very, very quickly.

Anyhow that be my tuppence, thanks for reading my walloftext

o7

(Sorry if I sound like I'm picking on Neph I actually just wanted to build on his post, I thought it was a good one and figured that me and him in public agreeing might well turn heads *dons the flame suit*)
Prescience
Federal Fleet Auxiliary
#79 - 2012-03-26 13:09:55 UTC
Slightly off topic I know and I apologise... I always read Factional Warfare as Fictional Warfare... Crazy me!
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#80 - 2012-03-26 16:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Atraxerxes wrote:
One Question. If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?
LOL, you (22nd) didn't get one the first time! (One of the biggest traveshamockeries in history of Eve btw)