open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Advanced Faction Warfare ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
Posted - 2009.12.28 18:49:00 - [31]
 

No plexes
No bunkers
No occupation
Removing acceleration gates from FW missions

Actually seeing sovereignity change would be a good thing. Maybe via shooting the stations in a system to deny them to the enemy. If there are no stations then, change it to percentage of militia pilots in a system over a month/months. Give us the chance to destroy the Titan above Luminaire.

If FW is not changed then, perhaps it would be better to scrap it and just keep the FW missions.

Psyflame
North Eastern Swat
Posted - 2009.12.29 05:02:00 - [32]
 

  • Give everyone else a reason to fight. Only space-LARPers have any interest in the current FW system.


  • Give militia members a source of lowsec income that exceeds that of the afk macro ravens flooding highsec.


  • Remove the ability to dock in enemy highsec.


  • Remove _or_ restrict the ability to dock in enemy-controlled lowsec.


  • Move away from the plexing system. It is terribly bugged and despite what a select few people might tell you, does not encourage the sort of PvP you described when originally introducing FW. It encourages blobs or, failing that, discourages any fight whatsoever.


  • Elections may sound nice, but they are terrible in reality. In caldari and minmatar militias (I cannot speak for the others) there have been several attempts to form "leadership" and it has always ended terribly with a large amount of people leaving the militia completely.


Originally by: iudex
2. An official, CCP-run fake-proof killboard for FW, more statistics, personal records etc. (maybe with an option to chose between private/public for the individual player) since a militia can't enforce killboard discipline like an alliance.

This is especially hilarious coming from the guy who spent about two months vandalizing the caldari killboard with fake mails of people he did not like.

I still don't know how I lost that wyvern in jita Laughing

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:45:00 - [33]
 

I like the voting idea but see my second point for another idea I have.

I don't like the idea of adding more factions. There are too few wartargets as it is.

My ideas:

1) Whenever a defensive plex is entered everone in the militia should be notified what plex and in what system. In otherwords the rats should have cbs. Whether they indicate ship types and numbers I don't care. This will make taking plexes more difficult but it should also lead to some pvp. The notification can be in militia chat or there can be a seperate channel. (I woudln't mind if we also found out when the other side entered there own defensive plexes. Yeah you coudln't say its from the rats cbs but who cares I want the plexes to be fought for) This would lead to actually having some pvp in fw.

2) The militias need something to fight for. Once a system is given to a faction they should be able to do something of value with it - make isk. I don't care if this is they will upgrade it to build certain types of structures, mine moons whatever - but somehting that is a considerable isk or lp source. The other side should be able to attack it. But who gets the money? It can't go to the whole militia evenly or there will be many alts that do nothign but join fw and sit in stations.

This is where fw can get very interesting. I would say only one fw corp can upgrade a system. That fw corp gets all the benefits of the upgrades to that system. If the fw corps squabble they may not be so quick to defend the other corps assets/upgrades from the opposing militia. : ) After all if the Gallente blow up caldari faction war "corp Bs" upgrades then Caldari faction war "corp C" can build their own upgrades there. Yes we will get a bit of intrigue in fw. Now we would have a reason to plex! Now we would have a reason to shoot at eachother.

3) what happens if one side gets steamrolled? Do things that make it darn near impossible to take all the systems. Maybe jsut make it impossible to leave the other militia with less than 5. Do something to make it harder to take additional systems the more you have. Maybe adjust the number of rats - maybe use sleeper rats and start ramping up the numbers. I'm not sure. But I think we can think of something here.

Sonreir
Gallente
Paragon Fury
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.12.29 22:55:00 - [34]
 

I'd like to see each of the proposed factions also offer faction ships (with faction fittings) to their higher-ranked members for use on "special missions".

Basically, you can accrue LPs to "rent" a faction setup. You're given a faction ship with faction fittings by your militia in exchange for a certain amount of LP. The ship cannot have its fittings removed and it also cannot be transferred to another player. The ship will stay in your possion for x number of hours or until you get it blown up. This change will encourage players to actually use their faction ships for PVP. :)

As a side note, it would be nice to be able to specify fittings for this ship at time of "purchase".

Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2009.12.30 07:00:00 - [35]
 

I have posted this in Veshta's FW topic, but will add to it here.

If CCP are looking to improved FW, please start with fixing the current bugs. The timer bug (that has been reported through petition and Bug Reports ad nausium) is making the FW a lot less enjoyable for all parties. IMO, if you want to 'capture; something, then you need to fight for it. The ability to be able to warp in a single ship and speed-tank any sized plex, whilst an interesting and useful tactic, does not really sit well with the whole RP side of FW. If you want to capture a plex, then you should have to destroy the NPC's who are assigned to protect it first.

I also agree with what several others have said about station docking. If I am in an enemy system, there is NO way I should be able to dock in 1 of their stations and make repairs to my ships.

My two cents worth

Garr Anders
Minmatar
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2009.12.30 09:18:00 - [36]
 

Acceleration gates and time based plexes are a crucial part of what Factional warfare is making easy accessable by new players.

The ship restrictions and the "early warning" with the directional scanner you can have helps teaching new players 1. to use these items and 2. to decided if they want to fight and being able to fight in the shipsizes they can fly and afford.

So please dont remove acc. gates as otherwise ppl will just blob away in what ever big/skill intensive ship they can fly.

Timebased objectives also avoid the "bigger is better" mentality as you dont need that many boats to fullfill an objective. Otherwise see what happens to 0.0. Just bigger blobs.

With a time based objective and the acc. gate ship restrictions somebody solo in a T1 frigate can meaningfull contribute to the overal occupancy game, aka a new player just trying out the game.

That it will be safer/slightly faster in a group/gang is something he ll learn while flying with his first fleet.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.12.30 10:54:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Condor Amarr
If CCP are looking to improved FW, please start with fixing the current bugs.


This and exactly this - FW is not optimal, by far, but it's not horribly bad, either. Just fixing the bugs would really add a lot of good.

Quote:
The timer bug (that has been reported through petition and Bug Reports ad nausium) is making the FW a lot less enjoyable for all parties.


Both of them, actually. Timer continuing to run when no one is in, and timer not finishing even if someone is.

Quote:
IMO, if you want to 'capture; something, then you need to fight for it. The ability to be able to warp in a single ship and speed-tank any sized plex, whilst an interesting and useful tactic, does not really sit well with the whole RP side of FW. If you want to capture a plex, then you should have to destroy the NPC's who are assigned to protect it first.


I'll go "please no" here :-)

NPCs are horrible on multiple levels. Their balance is bad, they discourage PvP (a single defending inty/faction frigate can fight bigger enemies just because of the NPC support so you need to bring more to attack), etc.etc.

Forcing attackers to kill all NPCs, thereby requiring enormous amounts of ammo to be brought everywhere, while defenders can defend all sized complexes in T1 frigates - AND get more system VP for a defensive plex than the attacker gets for an offensive plex - is just not useful.

Get rid of the NPCs. They do not add anything. If you want to make bigger complexes more demanding, require a frig/cruiser/BC/BS next to the button to have it run down, both for attackers and defenders.

The totally random plex spawning is still annoying then, but at least it gives a level playing field and encourages actual engagements inside the complexes.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.30 15:00:00 - [38]
 

I like some of the ideas here.

I was toying around with player run factions (the structure would be very different from player run alliances) a while back, and the idea of a militia run by either a single person or a council is exciting. Giving the militias formal structures to organize, set goals and so forth would be a very good place to start.

The value of space is also interesting. What are the advantages and disadvantages of holding systems? You could potentially reward both attacking and defending, by defining the value of a system/potential number of valuable systems dynamically, based on space. So a militia with 10 systems would have better space than one with 5, rewarding active militias.

There is probably some value in changing the nature of plexes spawning as well. The random nature that you take points by feels a little counter productive to organization and planning, which are the two key elements in sexy, large scale warfare.

Anyway, please keep the ideas coming. As mentioned before, I cannot promise that anything gets done, just that we will be keeping an eye on the thread.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2009.12.30 16:04:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
I like some of the ideas here....

Keep in mind that rewarding active militias may sound good on paper, but in reality you would be rewarding the militia with most pilots available (ie. swarm/blob).

Also, the militias are very fragile constructs, introducing anything resembling semi-static leadership roles will implode them all and you are left with loads of infighting and war-decs left and right.
We currently have collaboration between CEOs/FCs of major participants, essentially the council thing but without an artificial election mechanism .. not really needed if you ask me unless something like timers on bunkers can be set or similar.

If CCP decides to make changes, please for the love of Goddess, think big picture and make all the various aspects mesh properly .. PvE should encourage PvP and vice versa.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.12.30 17:06:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
I was toying around with player run factions (the structure would be very different from player run alliances) a while back, and the idea of a militia run by either a single person or a council is exciting. Giving the militias formal structures to organize, set goals and so forth would be a very good place to start.


I'm not so sure. One of the key aspects of FW is the goal of allowing "anyone" in. One of the key aspects of a disciplined organization is the ability to kick people out who misbehave. That's a fundamental flaw.

Allowing groups within the militia to organize themselves more, though, that would be good. I hear there are plans to allow militia corporations to form alliances, or even alliances to join the militia. *cough* *cough* ;-)

Quote:
The value of space is also interesting. What are the advantages and disadvantages of holding systems? You could potentially reward both attacking and defending, by defining the value of a system/potential number of valuable systems dynamically, based on space. So a militia with 10 systems would have better space than one with 5, rewarding active militias.


Make sure to base any system value on percentage of the original systems. The militias originally had very different starting counts of systems.

Quote:
There is probably some value in changing the nature of plexes spawning as well. The random nature that you take points by feels a little counter productive to organization and planning, which are the two key elements in sexy, large scale warfare.


One of the key reasons for the random nature was to allow and further sexy small scale warfare. It just doesn't really work that way (it does halfway). FW should cater to small corps who want to do something small - giving them their own little goals to achieve is really useful. :-)

Hlidskjalf
Dynamis New Eden
Cognitive Development
Posted - 2009.12.30 17:07:00 - [41]
 

"Local subspace beacon in restricted mode."
For FW Contested systems - disable local selectively, it should only be visible to the defending or holding faction.

Perhaps also have a look at what 0.0 just got in terms of infrastructure and have Faction Warfare specific pieces of infrastructure that can be upgraded by holding forces to be more effective and provide advantages, or that can be disabled much like a POS module, requiring repairs before it can be onlined again.

- Make the FW Hub an upgradable structure, limited number of upgrades
- FW only longer range Stargates with turrets that fire on enemy faction ships or Concord licensed targets [Upgrades allow larger ships to use OR another Stargate]
- Introduce a deployable version of the 0.0 Quantum Flux Generator for increased WH occurrences [Upgrades - more WH's spawning]
- Deployable Faction Control Patrol Nodes that spawn patrols of Faction ships to patrol gates and stations. [Upgrades allow larger, more dangerous wings]
- Perhaps a structure that changes local conditions, perhaps restoring its function (as such, disabling removes local) [Upgradable]

These upgrades should be ideally on the same grid or within a few grids of the Hub itself. I realize that multiple gates nearby could present the opportunity for a super camp, but the trade off is that you could either have one gate suitable to large ships, or a few that can only handle smaller ships. Besides, they are FW only. In the end, it might work as a stepping point towards what 0.0 is like, give defenders chances to make their space easier to defend while simultaniously giving attackers the chance to selectively hit targets (blind a system before an attack, disable stargates etc).

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.12.30 17:29:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 30/12/2009 17:29:00
Oh, and CCP Soundwave, you might also be interested in this thread, in case you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1234053

Kel Nissa
Posted - 2009.12.30 17:32:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Please keep the ideas coming, some of the stuff in this thread is very good.

The more ideas the better.


You are damn late.

The interesting discussions about the flawed implementation of fw happend already 1,5 years ago.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.30 18:04:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Edited by: Arkady Sadik on 30/12/2009 17:29:00
Oh, and CCP Soundwave, you might also be interested in this thread, in case you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1234053


Nice one, thanks.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2009.12.30 18:13:00 - [45]
 

I think we need to clarify whether we are talking about giving rewards to the entire militia or just to a specific militia corp. I like the idea of the rewards of each system going to a specific militia corp. Here is my thinking:

If you are going to give it to the entire militia you will either have to:
1) give it to every militia member regardless of participation. Or
2) have one set council/person giving rewards as they see fit.

Both of these fail. In the first case the rewards will be too watered down to really give anyone an incentive to do fw. There will be allot of people who will have their alts join and just sit around and rake in the rewards.

The second situation fails because no one can keep track of all members fighting in a fw. Plus it is too restrictive. If certain popular people get elected how will they ever be ousted? I mean if you don't like them you won't join fw. If you don't join fw you wont get a vote. Another problem is if there is too much isk in too few hands - elected or not - we will just have another scam, and people will leave fw.

This is why I think faction war militias should be understood as a federation of corps. Yes if your corp provides most of firepower-active people (dare I say blobs?) who can take plexes- then yeah you should get rewards proportional to that. Wars are won by having more firepower. The corps have an incentive to agree because by working together they will reap the most rewards for all corps in that militia. But yes, infighting is possible and those militias that have constant infighting will suffer. If you don't like the corp your in but still like fw then you can join another corp in fw or start your own - but you won't be completely cut off just because you don't like the latest council member/members. But I think ultimately the firepower you can muster should be deciding influence in this war.

If you have a corp with many members then you may be able to take more systems but you will also have to share the rewards with more people. If you have a corp with fewer members you may not be able to hold as many systems but you don't need to share the benefits of the systems you do hold with as many corpmates. Corps can work out deals where one system can go to a corp but they may have to pay isk to another if they want continued cooperation or avoid a flat out war dec. It seems that no one player corp has the majority of the militia therefore they can't completely dominate it.

I don't mind plexes so much as long as it yields real benefits to me. Making it so the other militia can't dock in a station is not a real benefit. I like the idea of plexes being a way to turn a system. I do think the other side should be notified so they can actually send a fleet to defend it. The problem with plexes now is it just entails orbiting a button. If the other side 1) knew you were in there and 2) had a reason to care that you were in there, then the plex system would lead to allot of good fights. Right now neither 1 or 2 are true so the plex idea doesn't work. I suggest we keep plexes but change 1 and 2.

Insa Rexion
Minmatar
Fumar Puede Matar
Posted - 2009.12.30 21:16:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
I like some of the ideas here.

I was toying around with player run factions (the structure would be very different from player run alliances) a while back, and the idea of a militia run by either a single person or a council is exciting.


Oh my God, all the things that are wrong with FW and you latch on the single worst idea in this thread and think it's all super duper Rolling Eyes

I've said it, others have said it... it won't work, ppl will just ignore the "leader/leadership" or outright leave. One of the reasons we like FW is the lack of barking mad idiots telling us what to do and we have our corp CEOs for that anyway.

Honestly I wonder if anyone in CCP has a grasp on reality at all

T'san Manaan
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.31 01:59:00 - [47]
 

If any sort of leadership is implemented it should be severly limited in its powers, maybe a council of FW CEOs who can vote each week to designate a target offensive and target defensive system.

Caping plexes, killing enemy militia members, or completing other TBD objectives in a designated target/defence system can reward the player with LP, And I still feel the Viceroy idea is the best starting point for this type of system.

Whichever form of leadership is implemented, just make sure you don't put in a "disband Faction" button Laughing

Dani Leone
Gallente
Positively Idle
Posted - 2009.12.31 18:07:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Dani Leone on 31/12/2009 18:12:10
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
I like some of the ideas here.

I was toying around with player run factions (the structure would be very different from player run alliances) a while back, and the idea of a militia run by either a single person or a council is exciting. Giving the militias formal structures to organize, set goals and so forth would be a very good place to start.

The value of space is also interesting. What are the advantages and disadvantages of holding systems? You could potentially reward both attacking and defending, by defining the value of a system/potential number of valuable systems dynamically, based on space. So a militia with 10 systems would have better space than one with 5, rewarding active militias.

There is probably some value in changing the nature of plexes spawning as well. The random nature that you take points by feels a little counter productive to organization and planning, which are the two key elements in sexy, large scale warfare.

...


How about player guided rather than player run?

Let me put down an example that what you were saying made me think of:

Say each Region, has a 'Command' Corporations that generate enough VP in that region during the previous week can join a regional command.
A command should only be available in a non sovereign region when at least one system in a region is occupied by the opposing faction. So no Amarr Metropolis command unless they hold occupancy in Metro. If thats combined with swapping the ownership of militia stations and agents within based on occupation then you have the basis for real and meaningful control and direction by dedicated players.

a constellation target for offence or defence could be selected for the next week depending on what the priorities are etc. Each corp in the Commands CEO would get the option of weighting the constellations in terms of off/def, acting as advisors to the NPC faction commaders essentially.

The entire constellations selected would be affected by the NPCs in different ways.

In the case of an offensive designation Agents across the entire region would give out a high proportion of missions to the target constellations, and those missions should generate VP as well as any other rewards so that non 'Command' corps and pilots would be taking part in destabilizing the target constellations simply by completing missions there.

In the case of a defensive designation, Plex spawns should be beefed up, maybe add faction navy spawns to gates and belts in a system at random to make travel by war targets and sitting on gates etc a little more difficult.

Over time if a region becomes less contested then corps will drop out from the Command naturally as they won't have enough VP from that region to remain in, and effectively the governance of that region is Civilianized again, it's NPC missions directed out to other contested regions, thus encouraging corps to move into more dangerous and contested areas.

In order to encourage players to want to join the commands, they could perhaps get a bonus of some kind such as 1.2x 1.3x LP earnings as long as they are attached to a command.

Another things I was thinking of, plex timers could perhaps be weighted, so the bigger a group go the shorter amount of time it takes, to a limit of say 2.5 times faster, and folks in a command should get notifications of opened plexes, let them then disseminate the information via intel channels etc, as there really is no reason why the military command would not let the commanders know that they were engaged in defending a particular system or installation.

This way those very active corporations could play a real role in shaping offensive and defensive operations, dissemination of intel etc.
All without having a central dictator ruining the experience for everyone, and leaving individual corps and players able to decide exactly what they want to do for themselves.

T'san Manaan
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.31 19:23:00 - [49]
 

^^ I like this idea.Very Happy^^

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.01.01 02:01:00 - [50]
 

I'm not sure I understand the command idea. But why make it only the command that knows when enemies are in plexes? Shouldn't the whole militia know? Why make so that people in command have to constantly copy and paste into militia or some other channel?

Dani Leone
Gallente
Positively Idle
Posted - 2010.01.01 11:44:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Cearain
I'm not sure I understand the command idea. But why make it only the command that knows when enemies are in plexes? Shouldn't the whole militia know? Why make so that people in command have to constantly copy and paste into militia or some other channel?


Tbh I was thinking of saving 10,000+ people from getting notifications every couple of minutes and consequent mass spam when you logon. But I'm thinking now that command member should get an enhanced militia screen with that sort of info, if anyone at all should and possibly it ought to be limited to naming a constellation not a system, maybe even just open types across the region, to avoid making life too easy for everyone, and avoid a keystone cops blob type scenario arising each time a player opens a plex.Rolling Eyes Better to let us figure some stuff out for ourselves.

As for why only command? It's to represent their trusted status with the npc militia top brass, its not like anyone will be excluded from joining, they'll just need to meet the requirements.

Doesn't have to be that way though just makes sense to me to give extra responsibility to those willing to step upto the plate.

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.01.01 13:00:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
There is probably some value in changing the nature of plexes spawning as well. The random nature that you take points by feels a little counter productive to organization and planning, which are the two key elements in sexy, large scale warfare.
You can't be a real dev. You sound like you've actually played the game.

While I can't really offer any specific ideas, as I have no FW experience (but plenty of nullsec), I am in favor of adding more excitement to FW. I'd say part of the reason I've never tried it (other than not wanting to leave my corp and my corp not being particularly interested in it) is because the rewards don't really seem in-line with the risk.

Out in nullsec, every PvP op has meaning: We're either defending our livelihood or expanding in hopes of increasing our standard of living. The rewards, of course, are things like rat bounties, faction rat loot, high-end ore, and moon minerals; basically, a majority of the most valuable things in the game.

Kel Nissa
Posted - 2010.01.01 14:52:00 - [53]
 

Dont forget the issues with neutrals, and friendly factions.

Tuttomenui II
Gallente
The Eloria Corporation
Posted - 2010.01.01 17:10:00 - [54]
 

CCP Soundwave, here is another thread that has some ideas that might work with FW.

You talking about player run militias and player run factions made me connect the 2, instead of giving the letters of marque to individuals you can give them to player run Militias and Factions, kind of like an IN for groups that cant participate in FW without leaving alliances. Make it so that corps can be a member of an alliance and a militia at the same time.


Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.01.02 09:39:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
[quote

IMO, if you want to 'capture; something, then you need to fight for it. The ability to be able to warp in a single ship and speed-tank any sized plex, whilst an interesting and useful tactic, does not really sit well with the whole RP side of FW. If you want to capture a plex, then you should have to destroy the NPC's who are assigned to protect it first.

I'll go "please no" here :-)

NPCs are horrible on multiple levels. Their balance is bad, they discourage PvP (a single defending inty/faction frigate can fight bigger enemies just because of the NPC support so you need to bring more to attack), etc.etc.

Forcing attackers to kill all NPCs, thereby requiring enormous amounts of ammo to be brought everywhere, while defenders can defend all sized complexes in T1 frigates - AND get more system VP for a defensive plex than the attacker gets for an offensive plex - is just not useful.

Get rid of the NPCs. They do not add anything. If you want to make bigger complexes more demanding, require a frig/cruiser/BC/BS next to the button to have it run down, both for attackers and defenders.



I think that should be EXACTLY the point. Attack SHOULD be harder and riskier than defense. If you want to take something from someone else, you need to fight for it. If you want to capture a system, then you should be facing the people assigned to protect that particular installation (NPC's) as well as Capsuleers, who have chosen to make it thier duty to protect them. Attacking a system should not be something that is taken lightly. You are stealing soveriegn land of your enemy, it SHOULD be hard.

My other point is about the timer bug. I am sure every active plexing pilot in all 4 Militia's has seen this and knows what many of us have posted petitioned/bug reported about.

CCP Soundwave, I am really glad to see that a Dev is watching the FW threads every now and then..... PLEASE fix the damn timer bug!! I am no intergoogle expert Wink but surely it can't be that difficult to have a look at what changed.
1. It used to work fine.
2. Someone broke it.
3. Now it doesn't work.
See, I have just done a lot of the work for you Very Happy

FW is a HEAP of fun and has kept me addicted to this game for far longer than I initially thought... But the neglect FW is getting from fixes is really starting to wear a lot of people down.

Example time:
- Timer bug noticed in Faction Warfare - Roughly Oct 09 (that was my first petition, although may have been earlier).

- Dominion is released - December 09

- As a result of Dominion SOV changes are made to 0.0 Warfare

- Bug is itentified with 0.0 SOV system, allowing certain structures etc to be targetted and destroyed when SOV is still in play - a few days after SOV changes

- Patch is released to fix 0.0 SOV problem - 24-36 HRS AFTER IT WAS IDENTIFIED

- Yet, here we wait.... Now a little impatiently, for a timer to fixed in a FW plex that was identified MONTHS before Dominion was released.

I can see that you are pretty keen to make, what sound like, some pretty big changes to FW in the future... And I for 1, am looking forward to it... But in the mean time, please fix the stuff that is actually broken!

Jared Ulfsuun
Posted - 2010.01.02 09:50:00 - [56]
 

Killboard as part of Spacebook: could you allow publishing killmails there? This would eliminate concerns about forgery, and maybe integrate the killboards better into EVE. (Though the new IGB was a massive improvement here!)

NPC intel 1: could be neat if NPCs sitting in plexes would inform the militia about offensive plexers. Maybe into a Constellation Intel channel, so that defenders already close by would know where to find PvP.

NPC intel 2: there could be an automated alert in Militia chat when a system goes vulnerable or becomes contested.

Occupancy matters: disallow docking on enemy stations -- it should make occupancy and front-lines matter more, and is good for RP besides.

Division of labor: mechanical support for focusing efforts in particular systems by corps or individuals would be very cool.

Knowing what's what: making the exact status of the system visible, so that you can actually see the result of your efforts. A bar or a number next to the (Contested) marker in the upper left would be enough.

Knowing why's why: Publicise the plex spawning mechanics. Just like 0.0 players need to know how sov works, we should not be reduced to guesswork.

Bandaid: NPC standings bug, timer bug: requiring killing all NPCs in a plex has been proposed as a means to mitigate both.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.01.02 11:08:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Condor Amarr
I think that should be EXACTLY the point. Attack SHOULD be harder and riskier than defense.


Yes indeed. Luckily, this can be achieved without discouraging equal fights in complexes - we already get more VP for defense than for offense. :-)

Quote:
You are stealing soveriegn land of your enemy, it SHOULD be hard.


My complaint was not about it being hard. My complaint was about it discouraging good engagements. Which is what the NPCs do. You can include all other sorts of things to make it as hard as you like - require larger ships to capture, require more ships to capture, triple the VP gained from defensive plexing, whatever.

NPCs don't make it hard. All they do is to make good engagements undesirable.

Condor Amarr
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.01.02 11:25:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: Condor Amarr
I think that should be EXACTLY the point. Attack SHOULD be harder and riskier than defense.


Yes indeed. Luckily, this can be achieved without discouraging equal fights in complexes - we already get more VP for defense than for offense. :-)

Quote:
You are stealing soveriegn land of your enemy, it SHOULD be hard.


My complaint was not about it being hard. My complaint was about it discouraging good engagements. Which is what the NPCs do. You can include all other sorts of things to make it as hard as you like - require larger ships to capture, require more ships to capture, triple the VP gained from defensive plexing, whatever.

NPCs don't make it hard. All they do is to make good engagements undesirable.


I see your point mate. The VP side of things really does nothing. Outside an RP perspective, VP really don't mean anything. Maybe we could look at asking CCP to introduce LP to plexing? This would make it far more attractive to people and MAY even get those mission w*oring guys that join the Militia for the LP alone to come and do some fighting for a change.

Cearain
Caldari
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
Posted - 2010.01.04 18:02:00 - [59]
 

As far as having a the notifications of enemies entering plexes go to a few commanders or to the whole militia:

I agree it might end up filling up the militia chat so perhaps just have a seperate chat channel that simply posts plex info. As for whether it will lead to blobs I don't think it will. If plexing actually paid some lp there would be allot of plexes going at the same time. Plus if you run your blob to the plex you might get caught by a bigger blob. Remember both sides would get the info. : ) So both sides would see where the potential hot spot is and try to cut eachother off.

If the blob breaks up into smaller blobs to try to stop the plexing...well we don't have blobs anymore. We have lots of small gang pvp.

Either way its much more fun than the current method of jumping from system to system, plex to plex looking for a ship/group that might be too big small or too big so we don't get a battle anyway.

But really to make this work we need to drop the npcs. Nobody likes fighting when annoying npcs are applying variable amounts of dps and ewar to your ship. It just makes battles a mess.

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.01.06 09:55:00 - [60]
 

Thanks guys, please keep the ideas coming.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only