| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar
7th Cav
    |
Posted - 2008.08.20 23:48:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Megan Maynard on 20/08/2008 23:49:03
Examples:
No clear way of telling how plexing efforts are going.
Missions are way too hard, and do not count towards capturing systems. (So no real reward for doing them over normal NPC missions.)
The difference between minor, outposts, majors, uncontested, etc is non-existent, all you need is two ships to take any plex.
Possible solutions that could refocus are quite obvious:
Make plex sizes dependent on plexing efforts. Minors, then Cruiser level, then BC level, then majors, then major uncontested's. If you plex long enough the level of plexes increases.
Why would the enemy faction reinforce a system with a major plex if the system is no where close to falling. Plexing should scale all the way up to the point that you defeat the faction NPC's and they have to call in the pod militia as a last defense of the system.
Make MISSIONS, that are hard, stay hard but actually help capture the system significantly. A level four mission in enemy territory, that has strategic importance like the agents say, should DO SOMETHING, not just be a crappy mission.
To sum up. Make missions count towards system VP's, make plexes have an order to clear up how close to capturing a system is, and all of these things lead up to a last ditch effort by the FACTIONS to call in militia to capture/defend the system.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 00:36:00 -
[2]
With regards to FW missions, I know very little about them. However, they really should tie into militia success somehow, if they don't already. The simple way to do this would be to count them toward VPs in a way similar to complexes. Perhaps they should have somewhat less effect, since they carry the advantage of being in a specific, pre-known location.
As an alternative, missions could have an indirect benefit to the militia completing them. For example, it might shift one or more 'undiscovered' complexes from friendly-controlled systems to enemy-controlled systems. Or it might reveal the location of one or more as-yet undiscovered enemy complexes. Or something similar.
|
Kitoba
Legion of Dynamic Discord
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 01:47:00 -
[3]
Yes, you can capture an hostile unrestricted plex with an inty for the aggro and a cruiser to shoot the frigs, but then you're bound to get stomped really quickly.
All in all, I don't think that it's a serious issue.
I suggest this:
- A fixed number of plexes per faction per constellation instead of the current system.
- Less VP for capping a plex in a system with many other open plexes. This way, the current balance can be retained while eliminating the insanity of having to defend plexes in uncontested systems just to have them respawn in another uncontested system instead of the last enemy system in the constellation. |
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 03:49:00 -
[4]
Edited by: MirrorGod on 21/08/2008 03:49:04
I spent about 2 weeks in and out trying to cap the semou constellation in coordination with our militia's other FC's, after roushzar was captured, no matter what we did we couldn't cap a system. Would greatly appreciate a clearer approach and some form to measure progress |
T 2
Tribal Core
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 05:27:00 -
[5]
I support what is discussed in this thread and also would like that CCP would clear up the system capturing mechanism a lot. |
Bakongo
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 10:20:00 -
[6]
I support the ideas in the OP.
Having a clearer idea of how plexing stands in various systems would be very nice. If you warp in and see a major plex up it would be great to know 'hey, this system is not far off flipping, lets focus our attack/defense here for the time being and see if we can't get/stop a flip'.
I think the current plexing system with random spawns of random size is unneccesarily complicated and a little cumbersome.
|
Angry Fist
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 13:10:00 -
[7]
There definitely needs to be more feedback on how close a system is to flipping, and I agree with the other points also. However I'd also like to add that the FW 'end game' of the system actually flipping is just so incredibly dull at the moment.
Currently, when a system goes vulnerable a huge enemy fleet captures the control bunker within about 5-10 minutes and that's it. Instead there needs to be a system vulnerability sub-game, perhaps spread over a 24-48 hour period, where each side has a chance to form a large fleet, perhaps call in a few capital ships, and have some kind of epic final battle over the control bunker to decide whether the invaders get to take the system or not.
Anything that encourages large fleet confrontations is good for FW in my humble opinion.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 14:39:00 -
[8]
 Originally by: Angry Fist
Currently, when a system goes vulnerable a huge enemy fleet captures the control bunker within about 5-10 minutes and that's it.
Just fyi roushzar was cap'd using around 5-8 ships. |
Crowdad
Cold templars
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 16:39:00 -
[9]
I totally agree, mechanics are far too cheesy... The spread of systems also makes it very hard to find those 3-5 man frigate fights we all enjoyed so much at the beginning of FW.
Time for CCP to get tweaking, and not let FW die... |
Rostran Targo
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 19:39:00 -
[10]
/signed
Hey look! It's a signature!
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
|
Hori To
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 18:18:00 -
[11]
sound ideas.
some sort of notify when system goes into vulnerable would also be nice. corp mail maybe?
 |
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 19:54:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2008 19:57:19
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 22/08/2008 19:53:39
FW veteran reporting in...
I agree with the concerns in this thread, but I can also inform you that CCP requested a lot of information from the CSM on how they can improve factional warfare.
And I wouldn't be surprised if we would see some improvements in the next Empyrean Age update.
If there are no improvements, I'll raise this issue, of course!
Link to the document I wrote for CCP
These are my personal views, keep that in mind.
---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 20:43:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I agree with the concerns in this thread, but I can also inform you that CCP requested a lot of information from the CSM on how they can improve factional warfare.
And I wouldn't be surprised if we would see some improvements in the next Empyrean Age update.
If there are no improvements, I'll raise this issue, of course!
Link to the document I wrote for CCP
These are my personal views, keep that in mind.
Some interesting ideas there. I particularly like the general theme of trying to come of with non-PvP roles to play in FW. I think it will be tough to come up with a fitting way to do this, but it's worth working toward.
Here's another idea to consider (though it would be specific to the Amarr/Matar front): slavery. On the Matari side, we have always longed for a game mechanic by which slaves could be freed. There used to be a very bad mechanic for doing this (agent offers) that was largely detested until even that was taken away, leaving nothing. Now we have this new war the pits the Tribal LIBERATION Force (stated goal: freeing slaves) against the 24th Imperial CRUSADE (stated goal: creating slaves), and there is absolutely no mechanic dealing with slaves.
I propose:
1) Place some new agents for each side. At the Matari agent, slaves can be turned in. Mechanically, this will be a repeatable mission akin to the COSMOS trade missions, with LP and standings rewards for completing them. To place a bit of a limit on farming, perhaps the number of slaves to complete each mission might increase each time (or perhaps just each time within a given time period). Note that unlike the old agent offer, this process does not generate 'freed slaves' or 'slaves' for either side; if it did it would invite players with alts on both sides of the conflict to cycle the same people back and forth indefinitely.
2) Drop slaves as loot in some form. One possibly interesting way to do this might be to use the exploration system. For example, a TLF supporter might be able to probe (exploration system) an Amarrian mining colony or slave convoy, destroy it, then carry back a number of slaves to freedom. The normal FW plexes might drop some. When a system is captured, perhaps it could spawn a large number of probe-able hidden sites where large numbers of slaves could be picked up. In some cases, convoys of haulers might be required, giving the other side a new PvP objective -- blockading the newly captured system and attacking transports looting it.
3) Do the same thing for the Amarrians, but in reverse. They are raiding Matari settements for fresh slaves, and transporting them back to 24IC HQ for training.
4) Keep counts of the numbers of slaves trained/freed by either side as an additional 'in-character' score.
I'm not sure what the equivalent would be for the Gallente/Caldari front. The Gallente could certainly free slaves, but it really isn't the focus of their conflict with the Caldari.
Just some thoughts...
--
Becq Starforged
Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 22:53:00 -
[14]
My major irritation with FW is all of the above, and the stallout of standings gain.
As you gain rank the percentage you get from each plex drops, added to the natural reduction in returns as you approach +10.
In standard missions you recieve the same percentage gain for a particular mission regardless of your standings (dependant on skills).
i.e. +2.50% for XYZ mission, if your standings are 1 or 10. Ofc, the amount your standing shifts depends on how far you are from +9.99~, reducing that gap by 2.50%
Now, with faction warfare, here's an example:
Clearing a major complex:
Unranked FW members recieve 4+%, 'lieutenants' recieve +2.75%, 'captains' 0.81%, and so on until you effectively recieve nothing for clearing complexes. So, not only is that gap between your current standing and +10 giving lesser returns as your standings go up, you're recieving less standing with each mission. Thus higher-ranked members, not recieving anything for their efforts but wrecks, will toss FW aside with a bad taste in their mouth.
This, alone, will put FW into life-support very much like COSMOS is now... introduced with great fanfare and then allowed to languish into uselessness after the farmers have exploited it to death.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 23:27:00 -
[15]
Originally by: I SoStoned
My major irritation with FW is all of the above, and the stallout of standings gain.
As you gain rank the percentage you get from each plex drops, added to the natural reduction in returns as you approach +10.
In standard missions you recieve the same percentage gain for a particular mission regardless of your standings (dependant on skills).
i.e. +2.50% for XYZ mission, if your standings are 1 or 10. Ofc, the amount your standing shifts depends on how far you are from +9.99~, reducing that gap by 2.50%
Now, with faction warfare, here's an example:
Clearing a major complex:
Unranked FW members recieve 4+%, 'lieutenants' recieve +2.75%, 'captains' 0.81%, and so on until you effectively recieve nothing for clearing complexes. So, not only is that gap between your current standing and +10 giving lesser returns as your standings go up, you're recieving less standing with each mission. Thus higher-ranked members, not recieving anything for their efforts but wrecks, will toss FW aside with a bad taste in their mouth.
This, alone, will put FW into life-support very much like COSMOS is now... introduced with great fanfare and then allowed to languish into uselessness after the farmers have exploited it to death.
Agreed. The falloff is too steep; there should be some falloff, but there's too much. Alternatively, if there was some other form of award for helping capture a plex -- like LP, for example -- I think that would go a long way toward making plex capture less uninteresting.
--
Becq Starforged
Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar
7th Cav
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 02:14:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Becq Starforged
Originally by: I SoStoned
My major irritation with FW is all of the above, and the stallout of standings gain.
As you gain rank the percentage you get from each plex drops, added to the natural reduction in returns as you approach +10.
In standard missions you recieve the same percentage gain for a particular mission regardless of your standings (dependant on skills).
i.e. +2.50% for XYZ mission, if your standings are 1 or 10. Ofc, the amount your standing shifts depends on how far you are from +9.99~, reducing that gap by 2.50%
Now, with faction warfare, here's an example:
Clearing a major complex:
Unranked FW members recieve 4+%, 'lieutenants' recieve +2.75%, 'captains' 0.81%, and so on until you effectively recieve nothing for clearing complexes. So, not only is that gap between your current standing and +10 giving lesser returns as your standings go up, you're recieving less standing with each mission. Thus higher-ranked members, not recieving anything for their efforts but wrecks, will toss FW aside with a bad taste in their mouth.
This, alone, will put FW into life-support very much like COSMOS is now... introduced with great fanfare and then allowed to languish into uselessness after the farmers have exploited it to death.
Agreed. The falloff is too steep; there should be some falloff, but there's too much. Alternatively, if there was some other form of award for helping capture a plex -- like LP, for example -- I think that would go a long way toward making plex capture less uninteresting.
LP is all ready rewarded in missions. HOWEVER, the missions don't do crap so it goes un-noticed.
 |
Megan Maynard
7th Cav
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 12:45:00 -
[17]
Some more benefits with missions having an impact:
Plexing gives you a pretty good boost in standings, which is shown by rank.
A higher rank means a higher agent, resulting in in more VP's for a mission; making the rank actually useful.
Maybe make militia agents a little harder to get to make skills and such less of a factor?
|
Hori To
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:42:00 -
[18]
more scrambling rats in fw missions and a bit higher rewards. them beeing in low-sec with a beacon to warp to hardly constitutes as carebearing / risk free isk.
|
Vyktor Abyss
IONSTAR
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 20:29:00 -
[19]
I support this discussion.
Perhaps rare Faction Spawns along the lines of "True Sanshas/Shadow Serps etc" in FW complexes with tags that can be exchanged in FW LP stores for certain offers might help the missioning part.
Some sort of corporation/member veto on miltia members would be good to reduce greifing.
Make all FW wrecks looted by neutrals be punishable by Navy NPC spawns.
- Just a few ideas for discussion.
|
oilio
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 23:04:00 -
[20]
Not sure what CCP should do, but they should do something to make FW more attractive.
We're losing FW players at an alarming rate. |
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 23:19:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Megan Maynard
Some more benefits with missions having an impact:
Plexing gives you a pretty good boost in standings, which is shown by rank.
A higher rank means a higher agent, resulting in in more VP's for a mission; making the rank actually useful.
Incorrect.
The higher your rank the less standings you are granted for clearing a complex. Not only do you recieve less standing gain as a reward you are still trying to shift your standing closer to ten which becomes increasingly difficult.
Once people reach a certain rank they realize that doing missions or sitting plexes fending off hostiles earns them nothing at all they realize that FW is utterly pointless as anything other than a free never-expiring war.
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar
7th Cav
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 01:52:00 -
[22]
Originally by: I SoStoned
Originally by: Megan Maynard
Some more benefits with missions having an impact:
Plexing gives you a pretty good boost in standings, which is shown by rank.
A higher rank means a higher agent, resulting in in more VP's for a mission; making the rank actually useful.
Incorrect.
The higher your rank the less standings you are granted for clearing a complex. Not only do you recieve less standing gain as a reward you are still trying to shift your standing closer to ten which becomes increasingly difficult.
Once people reach a certain rank they realize that doing missions or sitting plexes fending off hostiles earns them nothing at all they realize that FW is utterly pointless as anything other than a free never-expiring war.
If someone thinks capturing systems is pointless I can see your point. There is no risk/reward there. ANOTHER thing that is lacking in FW.
|
Daddy Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 05:24:00 -
[23]
One other thing that needs to be addressed in FW:
When you go in and snatch a complex away from enemies that have opened it you should recieve credit for capping it off and denying it to the enemy, regardless if the system is contested or not.
Under the current system if you are in a system, say Caldari, that is not contested and the Gallente open a plex but you run them out you should recieve some points for denying them the opportunity to force the system into contested status.
|
Erim Kaluk
17th Minmatar Tactical Wing
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:08:00 -
[24]
I agree with the OP. There needs to be more reward and incentives for FW to be worth while.
Some FW specific rewards would be pretty cool too.
|
Johncrab
Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 17:22:00 -
[25]
Totally agree with OP.
Also there should be consequences for losing/gaining a system. The losing side can't dock up, stuff like that... |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 20:40:00 -
[26]
I agree.... fix FW before you even think about anything else... such as alliances in FW (which would kill FW btw).
But wait... the CSM is debating alliances to be in FW, mainly due to the selfish personal opinion of Jade trying to push her agenda. 23 supports and JADE thinks that's a majority to propose the issue! When 99% of FW players oppose alliances in FW. FW is so broken, yet adding alliances deserves a CSM push? Where's the CSM talks about fixing FW and its core mechanic first!?!?
Jade... that's the reason why the CSM stinks.
---------------------------------
Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man. |
Darius JOHNSON
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 20:50:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
I agree.... fix FW before you even think about anything else... such as alliances in FW (which would kill FW btw).
But wait... the CSM is debating alliances to be in FW, mainly due to the selfish personal opinion of Jade trying to push her agenda. 23 supports and JADE thinks that's a majority to propose the issue! When 99% of FW players oppose alliances in FW. FW is so broken, yet adding alliances deserves a CSM push? Where's the CSM talks about fixing FW and its core mechanic first!?!?
Jade... that's the reason why the CSM stinks.
Just to interject a bit of reality here... Jade can't pass a single measure by himself. If the council raises the issue then it passes by a majority vote. I personally support alliances in FW, even if mainly because I don't support the idea of mechanics that limit gameplay to certain individuals via artificial means.
Originally by: Iroku Mata
Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 04:25:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
I agree.... fix FW before you even think about anything else... such as alliances in FW (which would kill FW btw).
But wait... the CSM is debating alliances to be in FW, mainly due to the selfish personal opinion of Jade trying to push her agenda. 23 supports and JADE thinks that's a majority to propose the issue! When 99% of FW players oppose alliances in FW. FW is so broken, yet adding alliances deserves a CSM push? Where's the CSM talks about fixing FW and its core mechanic first!?!?
Jade... that's the reason why the CSM stinks.
While you may disagree with alliances in FW, you seem to think that your opinion is the only one that counts. Here are four threads I was able to find on the topic, and even if you assume that people voted in multiple threads (I did), there are at least 76 unique thumbs up (quite a bit more that 23) represented here:
Alliances should be allowed to participate in factional warfare - 24 thumbs up
[Issue] Alliances and Factional Warfare - 26 thumbs up
[Proposal] Inclusion of 'RP' alliances into FW - 23 thumbs up
[Issue] Allowing Corps to Sign up for FW without Leaving Alliances - 76 thumbs up
Here is a partial list of corps and alliances represented by the thumbs up, including militia affiliation where known:
PIE Inc. (24IC)
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Ushra'Khan
Electus Matari
Kinda'Shujaa (TLF)
Vigilia Valeria
Encina Technologies (TLF)
Heretic Militia (TLF)
17th Minmatar Tactical Wing (TLF)
Universal Army (TLF)
Aegis Militia
Mixed Metaphor (FED)
Ammatar Free Corps (24IC)
The Wings of Maak (TLF)
Note that important militia contributors on both sides of the war are included, as are non-militia alliances on both sides. (Note that I'm more familiar with the Amarr/Matar front, so I didn't recognize much in the way of Gallente/Caldari groups.)
Bottom line? You're flat wrong. There is considerable interest in this topic ... just not from you. And you are not 99% of FW.
--
Becq Starforged
Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 06:50:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 08/10/2008 06:50:14
First of all, this topic will be up next sunday.
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
Where's the CSM talks about fixing FW and its core mechanic first!?!?
http://80.60.190.55/public/Factional%20Warfare%20by%20Eva%20Jobse.doc
This was sent in to CCP over a month ago, and I bet most of the CSM sent something similar.
I care about factional warfare and know of the issues plaguing it.
---
Thanks for all that supported me. Let me know if there's anything I can do for you.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 01:26:00 -
[30]
Oh, and another thing regarding FW: please, please, please change the logic that spawns complexes at DT. In fact, change it for normal exploration, too. Make them respawn immediately, or an hour after capture, or twenty-four hours later, or really anything other than at only one specific time per day.
|
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |