Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".
One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.
In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.
Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?
Won't matter. The issue is pretty straight forward:
Minmatar: Clear tangible benefit to continually upgrade system: They get it up to 61% (usually no higher) and then cash out. There are enough plexing alts cashing in all the time to make this work.
Amarr: ZERO benefit to upgrading system: They dont upgrade their systems because there is no concrete reason to do so. It will always be below 20% and therefore why bother?
On the other front (for some perspective): Gallente don't upgrade their systems on a regular basis because the upgrades will quickly be eaten away by Caldari afk plexing alts. Gallente have tried to do this in spurts. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded.
Caldari - I imaging Caldari are similar to Gallente with the exception that upgrades are slowly eaten away by semi-skilled afk plexing alts in an incursus. They have upgraded in spurts rather than consistently as well. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded yet. If they continue to steamroll plexes they will likely have a reason soon (once they get to 61 systems).
Also: Look at "Willingness to Upgrade" versus "Quality of NPC rats" (how hard it is to take a plex). Minmatar > Caldari > Gallente > Amarr |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2514
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:09:00 -
[92] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: Minmatar: Clear tangible benefit to continually upgrade system: They get it up to 61% (usually no higher) and then cash out. There are enough plexing alts cashing in all the time to make this work.
Amarr: ZERO benefit to upgrading system: They dont upgrade their systems because there is no concrete reason to do so. It will always be below 20% and therefore why bother?
Fair enough. I agree that the diminishing returns "problem" is less of an issue if you dont have systems to bother upgrading to begin with. I think if the Amarr started taking more space though and actually trying to move out of the price rut they are in, they may find themselves frustrated by the fact that their LP doesnt go as far in upgrading their space as the Minnies' does.
X Gallentius wrote: On the other front (for some perspective): Gallente don't upgrade their systems on a regular basis because the upgrades will quickly be eaten away by Caldari afk plexing alts. Gallente have tried to do this in spurts. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded.
Caldari - I imaging Caldari are similar to Gallente with the exception that upgrades are slowly eaten away by semi-skilled afk plexing alts in an incursus. They have upgraded in spurts rather than consistently as well. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded yet. If they continue to steamroll plexes they will likely have a reason soon (once they get to 61 systems).
Also: Look at "Willingness to Upgrade" versus "Quality of NPC rats" (how hard it is to take a plex). Minmatar > Caldari > Gallente > Amarr
What, in your opinion, is the best solution to dealing with the Caldari / Gallente situation in the long run? Is it primarily an issue of the size of the warzone, or a problem with speedfarmers? You're in a better place to advise on this warzone than myself.
Also - in your quality of NPC rat chart - is that taking Ewar into consideration, or is that how you see the rat quality once their E-war has been removed, which is what is going to happen in Inferno 1.1? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:12:00 -
[93] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
What, in your opinion, is the best solution to dealing with the Caldari / Gallente situation in the long run? Is it primarily an issue of the size of the warzone, or a problem with speedfarmers? You're in a better place to advise on this warzone than myself.
Also - in your quality of NPC rat chart - is that taking Ewar into consideration, or is that how you see the rat quality once their E-war has been removed, which is what is going to happen in Inferno 1.1?
E-WAR Removal: The only e-war that affects capping a plex solo, from what I understand, is web+target painter on Minmatar rats. None of the other e-war affects anybody's ability to tank a plex.
Once e-war is removed, Minmatar plexes will be on the same order as Caldari plexes, and Amarr plexes will be on the same order as Gallente: Cap Gallente/Amarr - Regular speed tanker Cap Caldari/Minmatar - Self repping incursus - You may see Minmatar upgrade level go down since plexing for Amarr will be easier.
Long Term Issue w.r.t System Upgrades: System upgrades should be removed from the game since upgrades are not leading to any tangible conflict.
Upgrades were obviously not put into this version of FW as any sort of reward for occupancy. The rewards suck and are for non-FW industrialists, and they are easily destroyed through a little bit of plexing. Rewards were put into FW to give people an incentive to defensive plex to protect their LP store bonuses. However, it is easier (and more fun) to simply re-fill the upgrade bucket (if there is a tangible reason to do so) than it is to defend a backwater system.
* Threat of getting kicked from a home system is leading to conflict. Most fights. * Threat of enemy getting foothold in a station system is leading to conflict. Some fights. * Threat of enemy securing non-station system is non-existent. These systems are flipping back and forth all the time. Conflict arises because people are out in space. A few fights. * Protection of upgraded systems? NO FIGHTS. Nobody is patrolling a region to protect their upgrades. Too boring.
If CCP really wants to have Gallente/Caldari upgrade their systems, then it needs to make them "easier to defend" which means removing less LP/offensive plex capped. Once you go down that route, then you might as well make the upgrade value equal to 1+ 5 * (100 - the percent contested)/100, and remove all this LP bunker stuffing nonsense. |
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:37:00 -
[94] - Quote
I've been tossing around this idea internally for a couple days. One of the professed problems of FW is the rat difficulty. So why don't we put it in the player's hands? Bust down the NPC rats to a their basic 4-5 waves. No E-War.
Military Upgrades: You get several either or choices. System wide armour bonuses? Or Stasis towers in plexes? Systemwide skirmish bonuses? Or more difficult rats in plexes? Police faction present in system in the form of NPC ships or sentry guns? Or choose the types of rats in the plexes?
That obviously isn't a full or even well thought out list. Put you should get the idea. The militia can choose upgrades to the I-HUB that either give combat bonuses to defending fleets or impair the enemy from plexing at a whim. The Military upgrades should only go away after losing a system. They should not contribute to warzone control. Here's the rub - These upgrades will be expensive. If you're at tier 2, they will cost half as much. If you're at tier 1 - a quarter as much. Tier 4? Double in price. Tier 5? Quadruple. You create a dynamic LP store that offers you SOMETHING if you're in the lowest tier. You essentially give the losing team a way to harden their remaining systems and make a come back. If you're the dominant side you don't want them to conquer a system back. The first thing they will do is harden it against counterattack.
Defensive Plexing: You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%.
Farming in another War Zone: LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy
Missions: The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:44:00 -
[95] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I've been tossing around this idea internally for a couple days. One of the professed problems of FW is the rat difficulty. So why don't we put it in the player's hands? Bust down the NPC rats to a their basic 4-5 waves. No E-War. Military Upgrades: You get several either or choices. System wide armour bonuses? Or Stasis towers in plexes? Systemwide skirmish bonuses? Or more difficult rats in plexes? Police faction present in system in the form of NPC ships or sentry guns? Or choose the types of rats in the plexes? That obviously isn't a full or even well thought out list. Put you should get the idea. The militia can choose upgrades to the I-HUB that either give combat bonuses to defending fleets or impair the enemy from plexing at a whim. The Military upgrades should only go away after losing a system. They should not contribute to warzone control. Here's the rub - These upgrades will be expensive. If you're at tier 2, they will cost half as much. If you're at tier 1 - a quarter as much. Tier 4? Double in price. Tier 5? Quadruple. You create a dynamic LP store that offers you SOMETHING if you're in the lowest tier. You essentially give the losing team a way to harden their remaining systems and make a come back. If you're the dominant side you don't want them to conquer a system back. The first thing they will do is harden it against counterattack. Defensive Plexing: You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%. Farming in another War Zone: LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy Missions: The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.
I actually really like your defensive plexing idea, that makes a whole lot of sense. Other than that though, I don't think we should be giving out free link bonuses system wide just through upgrades. That seems a bit ridiculous. Also I think the cost of upgrading idea is just a little too harsh. You want people to actually upgrade things and try to defend them, not make it so they just don't bother anymore once they start winning. I think a better approach is a carrot to the losing side rather than an overt stick to the winning side. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
466
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:03:00 -
[96] - Quote
The only thing underdogs have going for them now is that defensive plexing does not pay lp. The system is already horribly unbalanced to favor those who are on top. I would be hesitant to mitigate the only balancing mechanic underdogs have.
How many more people have joined minmatar as opposed to amarr since the dev blog announcing the changes? Fweddit is a phenomena that may help amarr somewhat. But I still imagine minmatar has gained more net pilots than the amarr since 2 months ago. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:12:00 -
[97] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote: I actually really like your defensive plexing idea, that makes a whole lot of sense. Other than that though, I don't think we should be giving out free link bonuses system wide just through upgrades. That seems a bit ridiculous. Also I think the cost of upgrading idea is just a little too harsh. You want people to actually upgrade things and try to defend them, not make it so they just don't bother anymore once they start winning. I think a better approach is a carrot to the losing side rather than an overt stick to the winning side.
It's a tit for tat proposal. Defensive plexing of contested systems becomes worthwhile. Losing factions get items they can spend LP on that are cheaper at tier 1 or 2. Those items have to be more expensive at higher tiers. Think of it as a more dynamic LP store. That is the concept in it's simplest form. Forget the specifics. |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:00:00 -
[98] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf Defensive Plexing: You get LP from defensive plexing based on the contested level of the system. If it's stable you get nothing. If it's at 10%, you get 10% of what the plex would normally give. If it's at 80%, you get... you guessed it, 80%. [;) wrote:
Probably makes sense. As a system gets nearer to vulnerable it gives both sides benefit to plexing, hopefully drawing more in and creating more fights. It might also help with the issue of it being more beneficial to let a system fall and reclaim it than it is to defend it.
Requiring all plex NPCs to be killed to cap a plex will remove the speed tanking alts from all factions and is the last part of the puzzle.
Quote: Farming in another War Zone: LP should be unique to the war zone you're in. If you're in Minmatar and you run a Caldari plex - then you get Gallente LP to be spent in the Gallente store. Simple and easy
Missions: The missions should send you to enemy systems. Running a mission in Asghed for the Minmatar is silly right now. They control it. Being sent to Ardar as the Amarr is suicidal and dumb considering there are many much closer systems.
Both of these make so much sense I thought that was how it worked now. Definitely do these asap. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
130
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:47:00 -
[99] - Quote
Put something related to cloak! System cloak jammer!!!! |
Gabriel Darkefyre
Federal Shadow Industries
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:54:00 -
[100] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:
- Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
Thanks for your time and ideas people!
Could make it a different module, a Cyno Destabiliser rather than a Jammer. Have an upper Ship Volume setpoint when it'll kick in based on the system upgrade level (Setpoint getting lower as the Upgrade level goes up).
For every ship that enters the System via Cyno, if it's above the Volume setpoint it has a percentage chance of missing the target beacon and appearing somewhere else in the same system at random.
For example -
Unupgraded - 20% Chance of Deviation, 100,000,000m3 set point (Affects all Titans only) Level 1 - 30% Chance of Deviation, 50,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Supercarriers to the Affected Ships) Level 2 - 40% Chance of Deviation, 25,000,000m3 Set Point Level 3 - 50% Chance of Deviation, 15,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Dreadnoughts / Jump Freighters to the Affected Ships) Level 4 - 60% Chance of Deviation, 14,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds Rorquals to the Affected Ships) Level 5 - 70% Chance of Deviation, 10,000,000m3 Set Point (Adds all Carriers to the Affected Ships)
Alternatively, could flag the affected ships from the Type ID rather than the Volume to allow a more logical progression of affected ships.
Unupgraded - Titans Level 1 - Supercarriers Level 2 - Dreadnoughts Level 3 - Carriers Level 4 - Rorquals Level 5 - Jump Freighters
Would be Anchorable in Lowsec only and would require the Anchoring Corporation to be part of the Militia of the Empire with Sovereignty in that system. To bring online requires you to be in the Militia, leaving the Militia will immediately offline the Destabiliser. Likewise, your faction losing Sovereignty will also offline the destabiliser. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
The Roaches
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 00:28:00 -
[101] - Quote
The upgrades in and of themselves are underwhelming for the reasons mentioned above. They do tend to be mostly for non-FW industrialists. Have we seen any such pilots moving out to low sec to take advantage of them? Even the reduced medical clone costs are meh - you don't get podded as often in low sec.
Any monetary reward given by the upgrades has to compete w/ the LP store. So if we gave an upgrade for better rats, for example, it would have to compete with a Tier 4/5 LP store. Upgrades right now are just a means to get that better store.
Rehashing this thread the most promising things seem to be: Reduced repair costs and a temporary cyno jammer. There's also a possiblity of better industrialist benefits. This is fine and good but it seems awful thin for a brain storming session.
1) Some things I come across in my FW life is security status. Pirates shoot at me and often times I have to shoot back. My sec status is constantly bouncing between -4.0 and -5.0. It would be nice if ratting built up my sec status faster. That would be an interesting upgrade.
2) Military upgrades. Take a problem and make it a feature. Upgrade the rats in your plexes of your system. Make it harder to take a plex. This can be used to address steamrolling and plexing draining system upgrades.
3) Bonuses/penalties similar to wormholes or incursions.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
206
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 04:25:00 -
[102] - Quote
@Zarnak:
1. Mind if I do a more advanced version of that? Sec. gain made exclusive to low-sec. One of the FW system upgrades is to increase said gain by increasing rat bounty .. would make FW turf the best place to rat sec. back up and militia's do so enjoy having more to shoot. NB: Increasing bounty and not the rat itself allows 'ratters' to stay small and use PvP fits/ships thus increasing the likelihood of a "Good TimeGäó".
2. Would only make sense if rat destruction becomes a requirement. Since plex capture is time(r) based, it makes better sense to have each level of upgrade (5 at present I believe) add one minute to all timers for attackers and remove one minute for defenders. - Attacking an upgraded system will take longer until upgrades are whittled down while defending said systems would be easier provided one starts doing so ASAP. NB: Would need some sort of delay before 'fresh' LP are applied to upgrade status or a defender could keep system uncontested by spamming BCs in major (at medium speed (-5 minutes) and adding LP immediately.
3. Similar perhaps, but you hopefully don't want the same magnitude .. would make attacking upgraded systems a royal pain and make every attack require an even bigger blob (no reships). Keep in mind that upgrades are bought with LP which are abundant to say the least, which I suspect is why CCP opted for such weak upgrade bonuses to begin with. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:11:00 -
[103] - Quote
Really not seeing people make use of the upgrade system.
CanGÇÖt help but feel that it needs to be harder to reduce the upgrade level.
More direct benefits need to be introduced.
I still feel linking NPC difficulty to upgrade level is an option.
LP rewards increase with warzone control but how about increasing LP rewards for PVP kills dependant on system upgrade level. (I am aware of the market manipulation exploit but this needs fixing separately) This would allow a faction that has fewer systems to reap greater rewards defensively (through ship kills) on a local basis.
Defensive plexing could occur at an accelerated time rate with higher upgrade levels. This does make it easier to defend key upgraded systems, but systems already vulnerable which should have a lower system upgrade level are still harder to defend.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:17:00 -
[104] - Quote
If the system upgrade level is not going to be more stable, then the industrial benefits need be modified to be a bit more fixed.
On a weekly (or monthly) basis the average upgrade level could be calculated and the industrial upgrades provided for the following week (month). This prevents the industrial reward being just available on a snapshot basis.
This could be reset if the system falls, or not and the enemy faction could reap the reward of an invested system for a short time.
This could actually be rolled out to other upgrades.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:22:00 -
[105] - Quote
Not sure if this belongs here but
Would it be possible to have an indication on the direction of movement of the % contested, say a small red up arrow or down green arrow indicating whether the percentage last moved up or down?
This does give small amount of Intel regarding systems being offensively defensively plexed.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:31:00 -
[106] - Quote
Given that all the rewards are for offensive plexing then I feel the contested percentage should naturally dissipate over time.
Making these comments it also occurs to me that it seems difficult to tie system upgrade level with offensive benefits rather than defensive benefits, perhaps there should be flow through to adjacent systems, if an adjacent system is under enemy control then there could be increased PVP kill rewards in the adjacent system % increase linked to upgrade level, this may encourage upgrading of border systems.
|
Zarnak Wulf
The Roaches
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:05:00 -
[107] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Zarnak:
2. Would only make sense if rat destruction becomes a requirement. Since plex capture is time(r) based, it makes better sense to have each level of upgrade (5 at present I believe) add one minute to all timers for attackers and remove one minute for defenders. - Attacking an upgraded system will take longer until upgrades are whittled down while defending said systems would be easier provided one starts doing so ASAP. NB: Would need some sort of delay before 'fresh' LP are applied to upgrade status or a defender could keep system uncontested by spamming BCs in major (at medium speed (-5 minutes) and adding LP immediately.
This really jumps out at me as a great idea. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
476
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:40:00 -
[108] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Zarnak:
2. Would only make sense if rat destruction becomes a requirement. Since plex capture is time(r) based, it makes better sense to have each level of upgrade (5 at present I believe) add one minute to all timers for attackers and remove one minute for defenders. - Attacking an upgraded system will take longer until upgrades are whittled down while defending said systems would be easier provided one starts doing so ASAP. NB: Would need some sort of delay before 'fresh' LP are applied to upgrade status or a defender could keep system uncontested by spamming BCs in major (at medium speed (-5 minutes) and adding LP immediately.
This really jumps out at me as a great idea.
I'm just not sure why we would do this. The current lp/plex system seems to be working quite well. (Yes there are other issues in faction war that need work but this particular part seems to be great.)
The main reward for upgrading a system is your lp costs are cut in half or even in one quarter! That is a great benefit that is well worth fighting for. Therefore the fact that the other benefits are pretty "meh" is not really a problem.
The caldari and gallente front have about 20 systems vulnerable. It's hard to see this as anything other than large storm clouds which will eventually break to a huge storm of intense fighting spread out over 20 sytems.
Amarr can easilly make a comeback - assuming we stop fighting eachother. LOL.
I guess I don't see why people are continually making suggestions to change the part of this faction war system that actually seems to be working well.
Let's focus on getting ccp to fix the parts that are a known problems like unbalanced rats, bugs, plexing alts, and the issue of it being a pve activity in general. These are the major issues that need to be addressed lets keep ccp focused on those. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Zarnak Wulf
The Roaches
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:52:00 -
[109] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Zarnak:
2. Would only make sense if rat destruction becomes a requirement. Since plex capture is time(r) based, it makes better sense to have each level of upgrade (5 at present I believe) add one minute to all timers for attackers and remove one minute for defenders. - Attacking an upgraded system will take longer until upgrades are whittled down while defending said systems would be easier provided one starts doing so ASAP. NB: Would need some sort of delay before 'fresh' LP are applied to upgrade status or a defender could keep system uncontested by spamming BCs in major (at medium speed (-5 minutes) and adding LP immediately.
This really jumps out at me as a great idea. I'm just not sure why we would do this. The current lp/plex system seems to be working quite well. (Yes there are other issues in faction war that need work but this particular part seems to be great.) The main reward for upgrading a system is your lp costs are cut in half or even in one quarter! That is a great benefit that is well worth fighting for. Therefore the fact that the other benefits are pretty "meh" is not really a problem. The caldari and gallente front have about 20 systems vulnerable. It's hard to see this as anything other than large storm clouds which will eventually break to a huge storm of intense fighting spread out over 20 sytems. Amarr can easilly make a comeback - assuming we stop fighting eachother. LOL. I guess I don't see why people are continually making suggestions to change the part of this faction war system that actually seems to be working well. Let's focus on getting ccp to fix the parts that are a known problems like unbalanced rats, bugs, plexing alts, and the issue of it being a pve activity in general. These are the major issues that need to be addressed lets keep ccp focused on those.
I suggest it because it's a way to add some ying into too much yang. Imagine if upgrading a system to +5 meant that the enemy militia had to spend an extra five minutes on a button as well as had to fight harder rats to clear that plex. Imagine that the defending miltia had to spend five minutes less on a plex to defend a system. Systems would be upgraded all the time, even at tier 1!
Now imagine that we had a new aspect to upgrades as well - the higher your warzone control tier, the more expensive it is to upgrade a system. Think of it as the LP store in reverse. Amarr, at tier one, would have to spend 37.5k LP to upgrade a system to 5 and get all the benefits above mentioned. Minmatar, which bounces between Tier 3-5, would have to spend 150k, 300k, or 600k to upgrade their systems.
If you eliminate running Caldari plexes for Minmatar LP, as well as missions in controlled systems - you have added a seesaw that will eventually lead to a back and forth fight. The winning side would have to defend more systems and compete for less LP that needs to do more. It would address steam rolling as well as week old farmers. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
476
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:05:00 -
[110] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Cearain wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:@Zarnak:
2. Would only make sense if rat destruction becomes a requirement. Since plex capture is time(r) based, it makes better sense to have each level of upgrade (5 at present I believe) add one minute to all timers for attackers and remove one minute for defenders. - Attacking an upgraded system will take longer until upgrades are whittled down while defending said systems would be easier provided one starts doing so ASAP. NB: Would need some sort of delay before 'fresh' LP are applied to upgrade status or a defender could keep system uncontested by spamming BCs in major (at medium speed (-5 minutes) and adding LP immediately.
This really jumps out at me as a great idea. I'm just not sure why we would do this. The current lp/plex system seems to be working quite well. (Yes there are other issues in faction war that need work but this particular part seems to be great.) The main reward for upgrading a system is your lp costs are cut in half or even in one quarter! That is a great benefit that is well worth fighting for. Therefore the fact that the other benefits are pretty "meh" is not really a problem. The caldari and gallente front have about 20 systems vulnerable. It's hard to see this as anything other than large storm clouds which will eventually break to a huge storm of intense fighting spread out over 20 sytems. Amarr can easilly make a comeback - assuming we stop fighting eachother. LOL. I guess I don't see why people are continually making suggestions to change the part of this faction war system that actually seems to be working well. Let's focus on getting ccp to fix the parts that are a known problems like unbalanced rats, bugs, plexing alts, and the issue of it being a pve activity in general. These are the major issues that need to be addressed lets keep ccp focused on those. I suggest it because it's a way to add some ying into too much yang. Imagine if upgrading a system to +5 meant that the enemy militia had to spend an extra five minutes on a button as well as had to fight harder rats to clear that plex. Imagine that the defending miltia had to spend five minutes less on a plex to defend a system. Systems would be upgraded all the time, even at tier 1! Now imagine that we had a new aspect to upgrades as well - the higher your warzone control tier, the more expensive it is to upgrade a system. Think of it as the LP store in reverse. Amarr, at tier one, would have to spend 37.5k LP to upgrade a system to 5 and get all the benefits above mentioned. Minmatar, which bounces between Tier 3-5, would have to spend 150k, 300k, or 600k to upgrade their systems. If you eliminate running Caldari plexes for Minmatar LP, as well as missions in controlled systems - you have added a seesaw that will eventually lead to a back and forth fight. The winning side would have to defend more systems and compete for less LP that needs to do more. It would address steam rolling as well as week old farmers.
The first paragraph gives an advantage to the side with more systems. The second paragraph gives a disadvantage to the side with more systems. I just don't see what this accomplishes.
The third paragraph is a different change which means we can no longer plex for our allies? I am not sure I like that change.
Right now we already have a system that will seesaw - assuming both sides actually use strategies based on the game mechanics.
Week old farmers can still farm plexes with your proposal.
Edit: I'm sure I am just not getting what the problem is. Do you think the system won't seesaw now? I think the no lp for dplexing should do the trick.
Do you think people should have to try to keep theier systems upgraded for longer periods of time? If so, why? How will doing that make the game better? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Zarnak Wulf
The Roaches
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:33:00 -
[111] - Quote
I'll start with my third paragraph. If I as an Amarrian militiaman plex Gallente plexes, then I should be rewarded with Caldari LP. Right now there are hordes of pilots running Caldari plexes in exchange for Minmatar LP. The system should be closed end in order to truly regulate. Otherwise it's kind of like having a counterfeit money machine in the basement. To answer your question, - in this regard the seesaw is broken.
The upgrades right now are ONLY there for the LP store. This thread is about how to make upgrades more appealing and worthwhile. My suggestions improve the seesaw.
Let's say the Amarr have 10 systems. We are at Tier 1. We capture Oyonata. (yes, I know we own it right now.) We spend 37.5k LP to upgrade it to Tier 5. We spend another 37.5K to buffer it for a total of 75k LP spent. To the enemy it still takes 150k LP to get through the buffer and 150k LP to tear through the upgrades. This makes taking it for the Minmatar longer, harder, more difficult, ect. It makes defending it easier.
Now say the Minmatar take it back. They are at Tier 4. In order for them to 'harden' the system, it costs 300k for upgrades and 300k for a buffer. The Amarr only take 150k and 150k LP to burn through buffer and upgrades. On the other side of the world, both Caldari and Gallente can't get beyond Tier 1 or 2 due to the sheer number of plexers. Hardening some systems would allow at least a base to develop.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
476
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 18:15:00 -
[112] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'll start with my third paragraph. If I as an Amarrian militiaman plex Gallente plexes, then I should be rewarded with Caldari LP. Right now there are hordes of pilots running Caldari plexes in exchange for Minmatar LP. The system should be closed end in order to truly regulate. Otherwise it's kind of like having a counterfeit money machine in the basement. To answer your question, - in this regard the seesaw is broken.
I am not really sure about this. Right now if you are in the minmatar militia and you want to plex for lp you would go to the caldari gallente front. That means that there are fewer people plexing in the amarr front and amarr can have an easier time to make a comeback on the occupancy front.
Zarnak Wulf wrote: The upgrades right now are ONLY there for the LP store. This thread is about how to make upgrades more appealing and worthwhile. ....
This is true.
I guess I am wondering if we need to make upgrades more appealing. If they are going to keep the station lock out (which I ould prefer they got rid of altogether) I guess that would make them more appealing.
But I don't see the problem really. The upgrades are required if you want tier 5. Tier 5 is very appealing already.
Zarnak Wulf wrote: Let's say the Amarr have 10 systems. We are at Tier 1. We capture Oyonata. (yes, I know we own it right now.) We spend 37.5k LP to upgrade it to Tier 5. We spend another 37.5K to buffer it for a total of 75k LP spent. To the enemy it still takes 150k LP to get through the buffer and 150k LP to tear through the upgrades. This makes taking it for the Minmatar longer, harder, more difficult, ect. It makes defending it easier.
Now say the Minmatar take it back. They are at Tier 4. In order for them to 'harden' the system, it costs 300k for upgrades and 300k for a buffer. The Amarr only take 150k and 150k LP to burn through buffer and upgrades. On the other side of the world, both Caldari and Gallente can't get beyond Tier 1 or 2 due to the sheer number of plexers. Hardening some systems would allow at least a base to develop.
This just seems to make the war more stagnant and slow with fewer big climactic shifts.
The gallente or caldari could get beyond tier 1 or 2 but they are actually playing the game smart and waiting for the right moment before they go flipping systems. The current rules gives each side more to consider beside "flip the system next us and upgrade it and then do the same with the system next to that etc." The strategy in such a system is so basic its hard to even call it a strategy.
Under the current mechanics amarr should not be flipping any systems right now. This is no secret. We should be getting them vulnerable like the gallente and caldari and then make a large push to take us up to tier 5. Of course, it would help if we could agree not to fight eachother let alone agree on an overall strategy.
I guess I am just thinking we should give the current system a try, before we ask ccp to change the rules so our simplistic strategy starts to work.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
477
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 13:33:00 -
[113] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: Any monetary reward given by the upgrades has to compete w/ the LP store. So if we gave an upgrade for better rats, for example, it would have to compete with a Tier 4/5 LP store. Upgrades right now are just a means to get that better store.
Rehashing this thread the most promising things seem to be: Reduced repair costs and a temporary cyno jammer. There's also a possiblity of better industrialist benefits. This is fine and good but it seems awful thin for a brain storming session.
The lp store benefits are more than enough to make the upgrades worthwhile.
With so many other things that are wrong with faction war I think the best response is to tell ccp they are barking up the wrong tree with this thread.
Reducing repair costs wont really do anything worthwhile for faction war as a whole.
Cyno jammers - I see just as many negatives as positives, and a whole lot of work for ccp. That work could be better spent making the plexing game less of a pve grind and balancing the rats etc.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Zarnak Wulf
The Roaches
389
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 19:31:00 -
[114] - Quote
Upgrades notify a militia of an individual plexing in a system. Upgrades cause the contestation of a system to decay over time. The upgrade status of the system determines the pace and timing of the ideas above. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.03 05:19:00 -
[115] - Quote
This has been said before, but bears repeating: warzone control should be worth less (or rather, less exaggerated from its baseline), and individual upgraded systems should be worth more. Plenty of excellent ideas have already been put forth as to specific system upgrades, so I wonGÇÖt bother offering anything there.
The problem is that with the current set up, there is little reason to defend a system unless it is a staging system. Unless the loss or gain of a system prevents or enables you from moving up a tier, the benefit is all in the taking and not in the having or keeping. This is completely bass ackwards in my opinion. Having a Level Five system should be awesome in and of itself, even your militia as a whole is getting its ship pushed in. While taking a system should be a very nice windfall for the conquering militia, it should not be their primary source of income. As is, there is little reason not to ball up in staging systems like Kourmonen, or Kamela as there is nothing to be gained from occupying other systems.
Fakeedit: I do have an idea for a tiered upgrade. NPC pirate bounty and sec status gain multiplier for friendly militia based upon upgrade level (hardly orginal, but w/e). Also, while I like the idea of military upgrades, I donGÇÖt want things that emphasize the PVE aspect of FW. Maybe something that increases the amount decontested for defensive plexing? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2644
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 18:39:00 -
[116] - Quote
Just wanted to point out that we had a good talk amongst various militia leaders this weekend, you can listen to the full podcast and discuss what you heard in the linked thread. Enjoy! Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 05:24:00 -
[117] - Quote
Neuts should not get any gain from Militia upgrades.
If anything - neutrals should pay a penalty to use the stations services. The penalty should be directly converted into LP and dumped into the iHub. This gives the system holder a form of payment for their work and stops the leeches gaining for no work.
The tier system is far too extreme on both ends of the scale. Tier 1 and 5 should simply be removed - leaving 3 workable tiers. Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 06:25:00 -
[118] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn.
Was kinda hoping no one would mention this.
Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
488
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 12:55:00 -
[119] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Neuts should not get any gain from Militia upgrades.
If anything - neutrals should pay a penalty to use the stations services. The penalty should be directly converted into LP and dumped into the iHub. This gives the system holder a form of payment for their work and stops the leeches gaining for no work.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
I think having neutrals in low sec pay penalties for using any station in fw low sec is a pretty bad idea.
I think the best way to do this is limit the no docking rule to the actual militia stations. Allow only miliitia to dock there and give great benefits. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Caldari State Capturing
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.13 06:10:00 -
[120] - Quote
Cearain wrote:IbanezLaney wrote:Neuts should not get any gain from Militia upgrades.
If anything - neutrals should pay a penalty to use the stations services. The penalty should be directly converted into LP and dumped into the iHub. This gives the system holder a form of payment for their work and stops the leeches gaining for no work.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I think having neutrals in low sec pay penalties for using any station in fw low sec is a pretty bad idea. I think the best way to do this is limit the no docking rule to the actual militia stations. Allow only miliitia to dock there and give great benefits.
You are not sure what I mean but you think what you are unsure about is a bad idea........ lol.
Congrats on a post that isn't a wall of text.
Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |