Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Damen Apol
Minmatar's Shadow
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 04:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Currently the state of Faction Warfare from what I have noticed is largely one mad offensive dash with little to no defense being played. The reason for this is simple, offensive plexes reward LP, defensive plexes give no direct benefit.
It's quite understandable that defensive plexes give no benefit, for farming purposes, but I have two ideas about how to perhaps combat the mad offensive dash that I perceive Faction Warfare to be.
1. Reward Defensive plexing a fraction of the amount that an offensive plex would give based on the percentage contested.
For example, assume a small plex rewards 15k LP if run offensively. Running a small plex defensively in a system that is 0% contested would award 0 LP. Running a small plex defensively in a system that is 50% contested would award 7.5k LP. This would promote defense in more popular systems and would likely lead to more PvP.
2. Break up Faction Warfare in general into pieces. As is the entire set of contested systems are open for attacking and defending. Perhaps if only a set amount of systems were available for attack/defense at any given time based on the progress of either side. So the warfare would progress a bit more logically, albeit in a much more controlled way, and I would personally prefer solution 1.
|
Private Pineapple
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 19:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
I support Solution 1, it really solves the source of many problems with FW. |
Ayame Yoshida
Republic 1st Fleet
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 19:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Point 1 would go some way to encouraging defensive plexing. There have been a number of good ideas to encourage defensive plexing, some of which included the idea of paying a % of LP directly to infrastructure of the system the plex is in. Some combination of that and what you suggest would seem ideal to me.
Could you clarify point 2 a little? Do you mean you would only be allowed to contest x amount of systems at once? or contest systems adjacent to a system you already control? Based on progress meaning you can contest more when winning or when losing?
Support FW uniforms here - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=112233 |
Akai Kvaesir
0ffice of Naval Intelligence
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 20:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
There is currently no point in defensive plexing. Nobody does it (not counting defense fleets) and there's a reason for it, which has nothing to do with whether or not the system is at 3% or 93% contested. Most people that are plexing are just doing it for the LP farming, even despite the lack of speedtanking, and without any legitimate payout they typically avoid defensive plexing like a plague. But the other main reason is simple carebearism, in that your defensively plexing systems that are currently under attack from the opposing militia, ie lots of WT's. Usually this means it's a hairy proposition for the defensive plexers, which roots out the more casual LP farmer (which, considering how much ISK speedtanking sites makes, for how little opposition there is...isn't suprising) and thus leaves the aggressor with a target-free system to just grind down till they flip it.
There is a balance in there somewhere, but I do think rewarding defensive plexing with fractional LP payouts would help in making it a more viable strategy. As it is, it's far more profitable to let systems flip, just to flip them back while snagging millions in LP. This makes it a frustrating war for Amarr, despite the enjoyment to be had from all the cheep pvp. |
Damen Apol
Minmatar's Shadow
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 02:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ayame Yoshida wrote:Could you clarify point 2 a little? Do you mean you would only be allowed to contest x amount of systems at once? or contest systems adjacent to a system you already control? Based on progress meaning you can contest more when winning or when losing?
I have drawn an INCREDIBLY crude picture designed to represent the idea.
http://i.imgur.com/o85Et.png
So each section would only be available for conquest/defense once the previous section had been completely conquered. |
Damen Apol
Minmatar's Shadow
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 02:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Akai Kvaesir wrote:There is currently no point in defensive plexing. Nobody does it (not counting defense fleets) and there's a reason for it, which has nothing to do with whether or not the system is at 3% or 93% contested. Most people that are plexing are just doing it for the LP farming, even despite the lack of speedtanking, and without any legitimate payout they typically avoid defensive plexing like a plague. But the other main reason is simple carebearism, in that your defensively plexing systems that are currently under attack from the opposing militia, ie lots of WT's. Usually this means it's a hairy proposition for the defensive plexers, which roots out the more casual LP farmer (which, considering how much ISK speedtanking sites makes, for how little opposition there is...isn't suprising) and thus leaves the aggressor with a target-free system to just grind down till they flip it.
I think by rewarding defensive plexing, this will also help solve the issue of solo offensive plexing simply because there will be more defenders in a more contested system. Sure this will encourage the people who really want to solo plex to go to uncontested systems, but eventually an equilibrium will be reached. |
Private Pineapple
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 02:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Damen Apol wrote:Ayame Yoshida wrote:Could you clarify point 2 a little? Do you mean you would only be allowed to contest x amount of systems at once? or contest systems adjacent to a system you already control? Based on progress meaning you can contest more when winning or when losing?
I have drawn an INCREDIBLY crude picture designed to represent the idea. http://i.imgur.com/o85Et.pngSo each section would only be available for conquest/defense once the previous section had been completely conquered.
I giggled when I read "INCREDIBLY" but the picture works very well in accordion to your explanation. This makes a lot more sense now that we have a visual on how it would work. Support Damen Apol's proposal! -áSolve all problems with FW with a simple solution!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119683&find=unread |
Lexmana
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
540
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 07:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
I like the idea of LP based on % contested. It makes sense both from game mechanics and RP point of view. But I can't support your idea of warzones. Let the militias decide what systems they think they can take (and defend).
|
Damen Apol
Minmatar's Shadow
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 00:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:I like the idea of LP based on % contested. It makes sense both from game mechanics and RP point of view. But I can't support your idea of warzones. Let the militias decide what systems they think they can take (and defend).
Yea, I definitely prefer solution 1, having that sort of rigid control inside a game as free as EVE would feel weird. |
Sun Win
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:52:00 -
[10] - Quote
Option 3: Find a mechanism for defending the system that doesn't involve orbiting a button AFK for 15 minutes . At least when offensive plexing there are rats to tank/shoot.
The problem is that capturing and defending systems is tedious. If we have to orbit a thing to change vulnerability, give more system % per outpost and reduce the spawn rate of outposts to compensate (I know that the devs want systems to take ~35 hours to flip).
It would be better if we had a capture mechanism that was more interesting. |
|
Damen Apol
Minmatar's Shadow
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sun Win wrote:Option 3: Find a mechanism for defending the system that doesn't involve orbiting a button AFK for 15 minutes . At least when offensive plexing there are rats to tank/shoot.
The problem is that capturing and defending systems is tedious. If we have to orbit a thing to change vulnerability, give more system % per outpost and reduce the spawn rate of outposts to compensate (I know that the devs want systems to take ~35 hours to flip).
It would be better if we had a capture mechanism that was more interesting.
With Mechanism 1, you would be more likely to be defensively plexing in a highly contested system, meaning a MUCH greater chance of having some PvP going on. |
Corniel Azizora
FISKL GUARDS Nulli Secunda
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
The idea only makes sense, if a system is not contested why go defend it, if a system IS contested than the troops should thus be rewarded for their work.
+Like |
Sun Win
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
Damen Apol wrote:With Mechanism 1, you would be more likely to be defensively plexing in a highly contested system, meaning a MUCH greater chance of having some PvP going on.
Your proposal doesn't make capturing mechanisms any more interesting, we're still orbiting a thing.
Maybe means more fights. Maybe.
Or maybe it means smart players find some other ways plex, that still avoid fights. For example, maybe they'd farm two systems in a frigate and bound back and forth leading an opposing fleet on a merry chase (more likely the fleet wouldn't bother, really because a single frigate is a tedious target to hunt). Maybe they just log on when it's not the other team's peak and plex in peace for extra LP.
The problem with capturing systems isn't a lack of LP. And so far we don't lack for PvP. The problem is that orbiting a thing is tedious as all hell and you need to do it for like 35 hours to make a difference. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
271
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1 I would like my no-skill afk defensive plexing alt to receive the same rewards as my main in a pvp-fit ship.
|
James Arget
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
First point good, of course.
Second point, interesting. I see you've chopped it into "zones" of fighting, but that seems slightly rigid. What if to flip a system, it had to have a stargate to a system already controlled. This would give much more strategic importance to a few choke systems, and introduce the idea of making a push behind enemy lines. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:59:00 -
[16] - Quote
problem: wouldn't people just juggle the contested % back and forth to score extra LPs? -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Private Pineapple
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
88
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:01:00 -
[17] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:problem: wouldn't people just juggle the contested % back and forth to score extra LPs?
Anything in FW, now or later, will be abuse-able by the 'X-factor' thing as I think it is called. Basically a person on Amarr and another on Minmatar can coordinate and make massive amounts of LP. This is possible now and it'll be possible later unless some serious restrictions are put in. Support Damen Apol's proposal! -áSolve all problems with FW with a simple solution!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119683&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 08:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
perhaps rather than try to thwart such actions, it would be more productive to make the LP gain from such action similar to what would be gotten from just grinding. For example: cause both sides to gain LP based on how heavily they do combat--damage dealt gives some LPs but scoring kills gives more, and causing ISK damage gives the most. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Zombie Ninja Space Bears
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:05:00 -
[19] - Quote
I somewhat agree with Option 1, though I believe that it should be based off of how contested the PLEX is, not the system.
The reason I say this is because I have come across several Plexes in uncontested systems that have a WT in them, I go in, the WT flees and then I get to orbit a button to close the plex which yields NO reward. If a Minor gets run down to 10s left on the button and then the WT leaves it, I still need to close that plex to lessen the chance that that system will become contested.
Now I am not saying that the reward for orbiting defensively should be the same as offensively. However, I do believe that there should be some form of reward, perhaps 1/4 the value of Offensive plexing.
If the plex was opened by a member of the non-sov holding militia, then that plex should pay out a reward if closed either way, whether the attacker finishes it or a defender comes along and closes it. Quit Crying and Just Suck It Up |
Private Pineapple
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 23:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Alaekessa wrote:I somewhat agree with Option 1, though I believe that it should be based off of how contested the PLEX is, not the system.
The reason I say this is because I have come across several Plexes in uncontested systems that have a WT in them, I go in, the WT flees and then I get to orbit a button to close the plex which yields NO reward. If a Minor gets run down to 10s left on the button and then the WT leaves it, I still need to close that plex to lessen the chance that that system will become contested.
Now I am not saying that the reward for orbiting defensively should be the same as offensively. However, I do believe that there should be some form of reward, perhaps 1/4 the value of Offensive plexing.
If the plex was opened by a member of the non-sov holding militia, then that plex should pay out a reward if closed either way, whether the attacker finishes it or a defender comes along and closes it.
Actually I agree with this. If it were based off how contested the plex is, it would be very abuse-able as people with alts could come in and shortly contest a plex and then you could just def-plex it for LP. This would actually lead to even more of a problem than current-day offensive plexing. If it were based off how contested the PLEX is then it would work out and would not be abuse-able by an alt. Zero risk, Great reward FW... yeah, FW needs to be balanced! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119886
Support Damen Apol's FW proposal! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119683 |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
475
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 18:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
I think this proposal takes away the only thing that favors the side with fewer systems.
This proposal makes it so that the defending side will have a reduced incentive to defend plexes in pvp. The economic attitude will be let the enemy finsih cappign some plexes in our systems. After all the more they contest the system the more money we make by running defensive plexes later when they are not around.
Right no with no reward for defensive plexing the defenders have a considerable incentive to drive a plexer out before he captures the plex. That is drive him out in pvp. Because if he lets the attacker actually capture the plex they are in effect punished by having to orbit a button for no gain or keep getting steps closer to losing the system.
The no lp for defensive plexing is one of the better mechanics in this expansion. Leave it be. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
475
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 18:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
No lp for defensive plexing does several good things:
1) Encourages the defending side to stop plexers in pvp before they capture a plex so that they do not need to orbit a button for no pay.
2) Gives some reason to join the side with fewer systems since although your lp is worth very little you have more opportunities to make lp through plexing. It also limits the winning sides ability to make lp through plexing. Yes they can still make lp from missions but that does not help their occupancy efforts and if enough people switch over to missioning instead of plexing then the side with fewer systems is given some respite.
3) It can lead to a war where many systems become vulnerable or close to vulnerable and then flipped in a dramatic fashion. Sure this hasn't happened, yet. But we are starting to see it signs of how it will work. One of the caldari or gallente refused to flip a system after bringing it to vulnerable. The minmatar are already getting concerned of the prospect that amarr will start farming those back systems in a way that will be very difficult/tedious for them to recapture. Once the amarr gets around to plexing those back systems and forcing the minmatar to plex for no gain we will start to wear them out. We haven't really begun that yet but it will work if we do decide to do that.
4) Its sort of neat to use individual greed as a balance.
5) If you want to farm systems where your enemy can't even dock then eve offers that already. Sov null sec. I think sov null sec could greatly benefit from a system like this where you are rewarded for taking over new space instead of just sitting in your space and farming it. IMO, that is a big reason why null sec has been so boring for the last few years. By forcing people to take over new space in order to gain isk you encourage conflict.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nefal Tiris
Norse Company
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 18:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
I support this.
i think FW mechanic is broken. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
522
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 14:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
Nefal Tiris wrote:I support this.
i think FW mechanic is broken.
Yes its broken but this proposal will just break it into even smaller pieces. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Terminator56
The 8th Tribe Seraphim Dragoons.
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
This is good, it gives people (farmers) a reason to defend systems. |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
45
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 16:11:00 -
[26] - Quote
Damen Apol wrote: 1. Reward Defensive plexing a fraction of the amount that an offensive plex would give based on the percentage contested.
For example, assume a small plex rewards 15k LP if run offensively. Running a small plex defensively in a system that is 0% contested would award 0 LP. Running a small plex defensively in a system that is 50% contested would award 7.5k LP. This would promote defense in more popular systems and would likely lead to more PvP.
This could work if the defensive LP was donated directly to the infrastructure hub instead of the defenders wallet.
Doing that would solve the problem of having alts in each militia plexing a system back and forth. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |