Saint VII
Minmatar
Murientor Tribe
   |
Posted - 2009.09.02 17:34:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Saint VII on 02/09/2009 17:34:54
The improved LP rewards were a nice gesture. The lag fixes were much appreciated. But I think what I appreciated most in your Blog, CCP, was your acknowledgement that much work remained to be done. While I'm excited for the focus on 0.0 space in your Winter expansion, please do not turn your backs on FW.
1. What is the goal of FW, from the design perspective? From interviews and blogs I have read, I gather that the purpose of FW is a sort of "stepping stone" into the game's larger and more elaborate PvP system. Therefore, the PvP should be accessible to beginners. Please note that, if I have misunderstood your intention here, everything following this point will be incorrect. 
2. Does the current system achieve this goal? No. The current system has resulted in primarily one thing: a perpetual cat-and-mouse game between two blobs.
3. The mission system isn't working. In theory, the mission system would provide the IDEAL outlet for new players to find fair fights against other new players. This is because they are all gate controled, and essentially can be treated as private "arenas" for combat. In practice they do not work this way at all.
Why? Because missions typically require you to travel 5 to 10 jumps. Each jump gate in the FW playground is a potential death trap, particularly if you are flying anything bigger than a Frigate. You essentially play Russian Roulette.
When this extremely high-risk is coupled with underwhelming reward, the rational player reaches a clear conclusion: do not do these missions. They are not "worth it".
4. Proposed solution to failed mission system. Divide agents/missions into two categories. Defensive. And Offensive. Defensive missions send you to your own systems and yield rewards comparable to the current ones. Offensive missions send you into enemy territory, but yield significant rewards, like supplies of faction ammo, etc. (Or, give an extreme boost to loyalty points for such missions.)
5. Territory control is meaningless. The other system which has a very good intention is the Complex system. Since it is gate controlled as well, it offers wonderful potential for "fair fights". But hardly anyone cares about these. And, why should they? There is not purpose, aside from pride or roleplay, to engage in plexing. They provide no benefit at all. There is no practical difference between a week in which you control every system and a week in which you control none.
6. Proposed improvement to territory control. Devise a way to tie the mission system, and the rewards/agents available, with territory control, such that controlling systems is desirable.
7. Complexes follow bizarre spawn rules. When a system is "contested", militia members should be able to find complexes in there to alter that status in one direction or the other. The current spawn rules surrounding complexes often prevents this, resulting in counter-intuitive situations.
8. Rank has a counter-intuitive impact. Insofar as I can tell, the only "benefit" of being a higher rank is that I become an increasingly more attractive target to my enemies. So, in fact, increasing my rank is bad. This is simply poor game design on its face.
9. Proposed improvement to rank. Rank should function in a way similar to standing, with a multiplier benefit to LP gained from missions, kills, etc.
10. Please do not forget about FW again. I think you were smart to implement this voluntary RvR-like system. PvP is potentially much more accessible to new players this way. But the current system feels only half-implemented. Please finish it for us. :)
No great scoundrel is ever uninteresting. |