Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
27
   |
Posted - 2011.10.08 16:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
3rd attempt at posting today..... :|
Alliances in FW
As a member of an RP-PVP alliance, being locked out of the games incarnation of the 'RP conflict' kinda sucks. This severely hurt the existing RP scene when FW launched as it negatively impacted many of the games existing RP entities. CCP's view was that we could just disband our alliances and share a chat channel because its 'basically the same thing'. I disagreed then, I disagree now.
A long time ago I proposed a system where faction standings could be used to allow alliances into FW but still pose a bar against larger entities walking in to steam roll or just plain grief the whole thing. If an average of all member pilots/corps faction standings were taken and a suitable threshold set then it be used to filter out the motivated alliances from idle griefers. It also scales up, the larger your alliance is then the harder it will be to achieve and keep that threshold. As new corps join an alliance they will need to have compatible standings else the alliance loses its FW status. I think such a system would restrict access to alliances focused on FW, RP-motivated alliances and effectively exclude larger groups entirely.
I think that alliances are good for forming social structures and identity, that has value. It is why we did not disband the Ushra'Khan 4 years back. We valued the history and social bonds too much.
Finally, I think that FW could provide a good breeding ground for alliances to emerge from that can mature before stepping out into null sec on their own. Battle hardened, close knit young alliances stepping out to carve their names into nul sec? Sounds like part of the shake up null sec needs tbh.
Make Occupancy Matter
Who is winning the war should matter. The fact it doesn't has always annoyed me and de-motivates anyone from going after the plexes or whatever system might be developed to replace them. EVE is a game about consequences, cause and effect. FW has none.
I would like to see occupancy of systems have repercussions, such as docking restrictions or access to station services being revoked. Or the sentry guns thing. But more than that, I want to see the outcomes of FW have an impact beyond FW. Faction standings should mean more in this game than which agents will give you a job. If my Amarr standings suck and I go wandering through the war zone, I should not be welcomed into their stations. Therefore, it should be in my interest to support the Minmatar to take that system if I want to use it for my own ends. Null sec alliances should not have free reign, and the militias should be a ;part of the wider world than just a limited section of low sec.
FW expansion
I think that consideration should be given to expanding the war zones throughout low sec. Particularly if it does become more popular.
Incursion-style Mechanics
This is likely too much content for the winter expansion, but I'd like to see the Incursion mechanics leveraged to create more dynamic FW content. The empires could launch offensives spawning special encounter sites intended to provoke more focused fights. To keep it in keeping with the backstory of the Militia Act, these might be faction navy 'NPC capsuleers' or groups such as the Minmatar Elders or Caldari Dragonaurs (Tibus Heth's lot) instigating the attacks outside of the empire governments. These randomly occurring 'offensives' might include encounter sites for both sides allowing for an influence tug of war to resolve system occupancy.
Transparency & Stats
There is a website hosted by the ISD (volunteers) that tracks FW stats. It monitors system captures and corp kill/victory points. This is stuff that should be presented in game and on EVEgate. The status of contested systems is currently shown as blobs on the starmap. None of this is currently very clear, accessible or engaging. An overhaul of how FW information is presented would improve the connection players feel to the war effort I think.
http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |