Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zyck
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 02:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Authors: Zyck, Ukiyo e.
CORE FEATURES: Purpose: Simply put, the purpose of this system is to make FW fun, interesting, and sustainable, while keeping the focus about PvP and providing significant rewards for participating. It also lays a solid foundation for future expansion of the system, while using tools that are already in EVE to reduce the resources needed to create it.
NPCs: The way to capture systems is to defeat the defenders and capture outposts scattered about the system. This is similar to the current system, which vary in difficulty, with the toughest ones requiring at least a moderate sized fleet to capture and the easiest ones requiring only a few people. Each system will have multiple outposts of varying difficulty, with at least one GÇ£difficultGÇ¥ one per system. These NPCGÇÖs will use the sleeper/incursion AI and have ships accordingly as strong.
Outpost Types: There are several key types of outposts in a system. The main outposts of interest are the Fleet Headquarters, Communication Array, and Forward Operating base. The Fleet Headquarters is the toughest outpost in the system, and is what must be defeated in order for the system to switch hands. The Communication Array is a moderate-high difficult outpost that requires a significant fleet to defeat, and taking this will begin the actual invasion, and spawn a Forward Operating Base, which is where the main fleet of the invaders is located. Aside from these, there are a number of other types of outposts which vary in difficulty from easy to very difficult.
Attacking a system: In order to switch the sovereignty of a system, an invasion must occur. For this to happen, an attacking fleet must assault and capture the Communication Array from the defenders. This will spawn the Forward Operating Base and the system will be considered contested and becomes vulnerable. Once vulnerable, a few things happen.
The first is that a notification is sent out via the factional warfare UI (similar to how the incursion UI shows where they are occurring) to let both the defenders and attackers know whatGÇÖs going on. The next is that an invasion slider appears in the contested system, heavily favoring the attackers. Finally, a timer begins at the FOB, which will run out if significant progress in the invasion is not made within X amount of time. When the timer runs out, the defenders automatically destroy the FOB and the invasion is unsuccessful.
In order to advance the invasion, the attackers must capture more outposts from the defenders. Capturing easier outposts will have less effect on the progress of the invasion than capturing stronger ones, though there will be more of them. The most important aspect of this is that as the invasion begins to advance, the invasion fleet gets stronger, and the HQ fleet gets weaker. So, as the invaders make progress, they become more difficult to dislodge and the final objective becomes easier to attack. Once the HQ or FOB is destroyed, the invasion is over one way or the other and the system becomes invulnerable for 24 hours.
Loyalty Points: LPGÇÖs are gained from capturing outposts, with the more difficult ones netting more LP, and taking a system completely giving the most. Destroying enemy ships also gives LP, though only a small amount so farming your own alts will cost you more money than you gain. Perhaps most importantly, there is a bonus to LP gain in contested systems. Taking a small outpost in an uncontested system will net very little LP, whereas it will net more in a contested system. Similarly, destroying hostile ships in a contested system will net a bonus to the reward. The most LP possible is gained from capturing outposts in a contested system and capturing the system itself, or destroying the invaderGÇÖs FOB.
Militia missions should also be completely removed, or else changed to GÇ£Attack/Defend this systemGÇ¥ type tasks. Factional Warfare should be based around PvP and capturing territory with meaningful rewards. Having what amounts to easily abused level 4 missions in low sec that can be run with an alt with little risk and high reward for avoiding PvP is NOT what it should be about.
Most importantly, there is a global LP boost associated with how many systems are controlled by the militia. If there are a total of 50 systems that are part of Factional Warfare, each side will start with 25 and have a 0% bonus to earned LP. As they take systems, this bonus increases with decreasing gains, meaning that the first 5 systems taken increase the bonus more than the next 5 taken. This gives an additional incentive to both capture and defend your militiaGÇÖs territory.
Loyalty Store: The primary currency should be LP, not isk. A person who wants to benefit from the territory controlled by their faction needs to actually participate to earn the LP rewards, not just reap the benefits for doing nothing.
|
ukiyo e
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 02:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Main Issues: While brainstorming these ideas, we found a few potential weaknesses and would like to ask the community for ideas to fix them or to poke holes in anything else that we missed. I will briefly outline what we came up with below:
1. Where will the fights occur?: Obviously, either fleet will not want to engage the other with the NPC fleet attacking them too, which gives a big advantage to the defenders who only need to wait it out. This discourages PvP and makes it a boring GÇ£wait them out and we winGÇ¥ game for the defenders unless theyGÇÖre horribly outnumbered to begin with.
Possible Solution: Make the weaker outposts numerous, and have weaker outposts have little EWAR and warp disrupting. This means the attacking fleet can either start taking them and force the defenders to fight in an area where the NPCGÇÖs arenGÇÖt very strong, or they can split up into multiple smaller fleets and start taking the weaker outposts, forcing the defenders to do the same or try to protect one while losing others. This could also lead to a fight as the attacking fleet engages the defending fleet who is now located in a weak outpost. As these weaker outposts are captured, the invasion progresses and the GÇ£strongerGÇ¥ outposts become weaker as described previously. This also allows for smaller skirmishes and hit and run fights.
2. Gaming the system: Quite simply, how can this system be made so that it canGÇÖt be cheated and that systems arenGÇÖt just farmed without ever being contested, even at the reduced LP gain.
Possible Solution: ??? |
Acthiliak
Imminent Ruin
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 02:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
+1 yes please |
London
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 02:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 You've got my support. EVE: Create a Starship - Naga Frigate |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
49
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 08:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
So you want to introduce a system where one can plant a big fat blob in a system and be guaranteed a win? - Insta-locking dictors on in gates with optimized 3-4 man crews clearing plexes just like Incursions.
So you want to introduce a system where a winning side will become increasingly richer and thus attract even more for its blobs? - Imagine if that was in place when Caldari got every last Gallente system through sheer force of numbers .. where is the fun in having only 2-3 militias?
All in all, it sounds like you want to adopt the Incursion mechanics almost in its entirety .. thanks, but no thanks. You need to spread the action out across at least 1-2 constellations to subdue the urge to blob, but spread it too thin and it will be as it is with blobs in a main pipe and Dramiel's hunting bombers everywhere else.
PS: The NPC conundrum could be solved by having them 'stand down' when an ally enters the grid. The main problem with them is for the most part the application of eWar which can be devastating so removing aggro should solve it. |
ukiyo e
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 14:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:So you want to introduce a system where one can plant a big fat blob in a system and be guaranteed a win? Do I want to promote teamwork? Of course! What you call a blob, I call people working together to achieve a goal. Incursions have done an excellent job of bringing high sec dwellers together instead of running missions solo. I would like to see that kind of organization brought to the faction war. There will still be opportunities for small scale PVP.
Quote:- Insta-locking dictors on in gates with optimized 3-4 man crews clearing plexes just like Incursions. If they are camping a gate, then you jump your fleet in and kill them. Also, I wouldn't expect to see many "optimized" fleets running faction war plexes because this will be occurring in low sec. I don't think that many people will be willing to risk their shiny ships. It would be safer to work in PVP fleets so that you can clear plexes and engage hostile threats.
Quote:So you want to introduce a system where a winning side will become increasingly richer and thus attract even more for its blobs? There is a rate of diminishing returns. If your side is winning then there's more items flooding the market from your LP store and the price will drop. Besides, everyone's already getting rich off of the faction war since the faction war mission system can be easily manipulated.
Quote:- Imagine if that was in place when Caldari got every last Gallente system through sheer force of numbers .. where is the fun in having only 2-3 militias? Check your history. The black rise campaign wasn't won through numbers, it was won with determination. Those guys slogged through the faction war sov system even though it was extremely boring. The gallente didn't want to deal with the system so they didn't defend. If the sov system was something that people actually wanted to participate in then that never would have happened.
Quote:You need to spread the action out across at least 1-2 constellations to subdue the urge to blob, but spread it too thin and it will be as it is with blobs in a main pipe and Dramiel's hunting bombers everywhere else. The current faction war system does a poor job of creating points of contention. Making a system vulnerable was supposed to evoke a response from both sides: one to destroy the bunker, another to defend it. This didn't pan out because it happened too quickly. Usually by the time a defense fleet was formed the bunker was already captured. By using incursion mechanics that make a system vulnerable for multiple days there will be more opportunities for engagements. |
Dirk Smacker
Kaalakiota Expeditionary Force
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 15:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Another example which meets the general goals of this proposal:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=151935#post151935
I support this in principle.
Not sure why you would need to eliminate FW missions, though. Maybe nerf the LP reward, but they still private a unique mission experience worth saving. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
59
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 17:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
ukiyo e wrote:Quote:So you want to introduce a system where one can plant a big fat blob in a system and be guaranteed a win? Do I want to promote teamwork? Of course! What you call a blob, I call people working together to achieve a goal. Incursions have done an excellent job of bringing high sec dwellers together instead of running missions solo. I would like to see that kind of organization brought to the faction war. There will still be opportunities for small scale PVP..
I don't mind adding some of the incursion features to fw. However the idea that we would need fleets to fight npcs is going in the wrong direction. By making the npcs tougher you are making fw more of a pve game. The npcs should be eliminated or drastically reduced and minimized so that people can fit normal pvp ships that they would use for small gang pvp.
Incursions already exist in low sec. If people want to run them they can. If you would like to engage the mechanic you describe then then run low sec incursions. You will get the rp of fighting the sansha. If you and the others are already running low sec incursions please recognize that not everyone in fw wants to pve to gain occupancy.
If players are screaming for more incursions in low sec ccp can just spawn more. But please don't waste the potential of fw to be a unique method to get pvp by simply having ccp spam the sleeper ai all over it.
Repackaging an existing game play mechanic and calling it "new faction war" won't appeal to new or different players.
If they turn faction war into simply running incursions in low sec then the people who currently run incursions in low sec will join fw. But as to the vast majority of people who don't want to run incursions in low sec. They will probably continue to not want to run incursions in low sec for the same reasons they don't run them now.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies THE UNTHINKABLES
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 04:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:So you want to introduce a system where one can plant a big fat blob in a system and be guaranteed a win? - Insta-locking dictors on in gates with optimized 3-4 man crews clearing plexes just like Incursions.
So you want to introduce a system where a winning side will become increasingly richer and thus attract even more for its blobs? - Imagine if that was in place when Caldari got every last Gallente system through sheer force of numbers .. where is the fun in having only 2-3 militias?
All in all, it sounds like you want to adopt the Incursion mechanics almost in its entirety .. thanks, but no thanks. You need to spread the action out across at least 1-2 constellations to subdue the urge to blob, but spread it too thin and it will be as it is with blobs in a main pipe and Dramiel's hunting bombers everywhere else.
PS: The NPC conundrum could be solved by having them 'stand down' when an ally enters the grid. The main problem with them is for the most part the application of eWar which can be devastating so removing aggro should solve it.
It's a war there are loosers. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
50
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 10:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
ukiyo e wrote:Do I want to promote teamwork? Of course! What you call a blob, I call people working together to achieve a goal... The blob is by definition created to avoid fights or to win so decisively if a fight occurs as to make it a remote possibility in the first place. The concept has utterly ruined null-sec for just about everyone so I have no desire to make it the SOP for FW. Spread it out and the blob remains an option but loses its status as the only "competitive" option .. spread it out enough and the blob might even be downright disadvantageous.
ukiyo e wrote:If they are camping a gate, then you jump your fleet in and kill them.... How many times a day/week do you voluntarily suicide jump into a blob for you to encourage it as a tactic? Take a look at the militia operations today, most have a "best" timezone in which they rule and can dominate any system they choose. Sure if it was just the HICs on the gate then by all means jump to your hearts content, but what do you plan to do with the 3-4x your numbers (aka. the blob) that is at worst a 30s warp away? As for no shinies in the zones .. wow are you behind the times. Gatecamping Titan's, SC hotdrops, roaming T3 gangs and more faction cruisers than you can shake a stick at .. the only non-shiny are probably tier2 BCs which are omni-present just as they are everywhere else.
ukiyo e wrote:There is a rate of diminishing returns... Might have been true two years ago, but market prices for all FW store items bottomed out a long time ago. The influx of LP from the mission whores crashed all markets within a month of agent changes, the only way to change that is to make mission unavailable to non-combatants .. not by adding even more LP to the pot.
ukiyo e wrote:Check your history... Actually it was done by gaming the system to its fullest. All exploitable (but not deemed exploits) facets were abused. What I am referring to in my reference to numbers is the fact that after the first few constellations fell the rabble flocked to the cause and added even more ships until the Gallente could not resist it even if they wanted to .. you say they didn't want to deal with it but that was the hindsight explanation, fact is they has no hope in hell due to numbers and NPC/plex imbalances.
ukiyo e wrote:...This didn't pan out because it happened too quickly. Usually by the time a defense fleet was formed the bunker was already captured... And bunkers have had their EHP increased twice already as a result which has led to a further escalation and the use of Scarriers, because lets face it grinding static EHP is boring as hell. I am all for a replacement to that most atrocious of mechanics, but what is suggested benefits numbers even more than the grind does and in a single system which makes it even more pronounced.
|
|
Dirk Smacker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I don't mind adding some of the incursion features to fw. However the idea that we would need fleets to fight npcs is going in the wrong direction. By making the npcs tougher you are making fw more of a pve game.
So you would rather have new players fight pirates who vastly outgun them than join in on militia fleets that do PvE when there is no PvP to be had?
Cearain wrote: The npcs should be eliminated or drastically reduced and minimized so that people can fit normal pvp ships that they would use for small gang pvp.
And thus would put even more power in the hands of plexing alts. Why not just make Demar and Val Erian GM's who can close a defensive plex with a push of a button? That way they can use their alts for something useful to the EVE economy instead.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 18:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
ukiyo e wrote:[The current faction war system does a poor job of creating points of contention. Making a system vulnerable was supposed to evoke a response from both sides: one to destroy the bunker, another to defend it. This didn't pan out because it happened too quickly. Usually by the time a defense fleet was formed the bunker was already captured. By using incursion mechanics that make a system vulnerable for multiple days there will be more opportunities for engagements.
The defense of Murethand (way back n the day) is a perfect example of why the current bunker system doesn't work. Zyck formed a Gallente fleet and held the bunker for HOURS, but there was no feasible way to decontest the system and make it safe (there were no plexes available and even if they were, the plex respawns were heavily weighted to after DT). Caldari came back after downtime to cap the bunker when they had the numbers. Waste of time.
The only feasible way to defend a system is by capping plexes which under the current system is BORING when there are no fights. 90% of the people in FW at that time were in it for PVP (missions sucked) and the occupancy mechanic doesn't encourage real pvp - and therefore 90% of the players in FW didn't participate in the occupancy mechanic.
To answer your questions: 1) Fights will occur where people want to leroy (fighting for fighting's sake) or where both sides think they have a shot at winning. Otherwise fights won't happen. 2) All PvE including incursions is farmed. Nothing you can do about it.
I like your ideas because it means a fleet of 60 guys has a shot at capturing a system 60 times faster than one alt roaming around looking for plexes and respawns of plexes. The objectives are available and in system, effort is required accomplish the goals, and that effort gets easier as the number of participants increases.
I'd suggest tuning the NPCs such that a fleet of 50 guys can conquer a system in say, two hours, if there is no resistance. |
Cearain
The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION
59
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 22:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dirk Smacker wrote:Cearain wrote: I don't mind adding some of the incursion features to fw. However the idea that we would need fleets to fight npcs is going in the wrong direction. By making the npcs tougher you are making fw more of a pve game.
So you would rather have new players fight pirates who vastly outgun them than join in on militia fleets that do PvE when there is no PvP to be had?
Huh? There are so many false assumptions here I don't know were to begin.
The militias are not vastly outgunned by the pirates. Especially in the plexes. The plexes will only let certain sized ships in. Most pirates are flying around in bcs or larger so they are not even allowed in medium or minor plexes.
But yes if the pirates wanted to ship down and fight in the plexes it would be good for both the new fw participant and the pirates. It would be good for low sec as a whole. And in any case fitting your ship for pve is not going to help you deal with pirates. Fitting your ship for pve is going to make you more inclined to run from any pvp encounters.
FW is not only for "new players" either. If people want to join fleets and do pve without the pvp they can do high sec incursions.
Really CCP set up incursions for people who want to do fleet pve. So you have that mechanic if you want to use it. Why force fleet pve down the throats of everyone in fw?
Why not allow ccp to make 1 single solitary mechanic for small scale pvp?
Why do so many people insist on puking npcs all over faction war?
Cearain wrote: The npcs should be eliminated or drastically reduced and minimized so that people can fit normal pvp ships that they would use for small gang pvp.
And thus would put even more power in the hands of plexing alts. Why not just make Demar and Val Erian GM's who can close a defensive plex with a push of a button? That way they can use their alts for something useful to the EVE economy instead.
[/quote]
The rats do not stop alts as anyone who knows about fw history is aware. Alts would best be stopped by letting the opposing militia know where and when a plex is entered. That way fw can be decided by who the better pvpers are not the best carebears. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 02:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
won't work as intended unfortunatly. chances are defender blob will just try to kill the FOB, while attacker blob goes straight for the harderst site to complete.
though i like how u think, it should be all PVP. LP should be given for killing enemy ships based on hull type, make it so i u kill the same person twice u only get the LP of the most expensive hull that person flew... so if u kill a rifter then a battleship of mine u will get the LP of me flying a battleship. |
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies THE UNTHINKABLES
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 13:49:00 -
[15] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:won't work as intended unfortunatly. chances are defender blob will just try to kill the FOB, while attacker blob goes straight for the harderst site to complete.
though i like how u think, it should be all PVP. LP should be given for killing enemy ships based on hull type, make it so i u kill the same person twice u only get the LP of the most expensive hull that person flew... so if u kill a rifter then a battleship of mine u will get the LP of me flying a battleship.
well this would make me happy. people would buy ships for their alts to blow them up for LP. i would be so happy if this was the case because i would make so much money selling ships. |
Zyck
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.12 21:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
I'm not sure if you're referencing his idea or the one in the OP but the idea is that the LP gain would be worth less than the isk cost of the ship, so anyone who did this would be at a net loss to prevent exactly that. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |