| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
60
   |
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:50:29 -
[1] - Quote
Ello ladies and gents.
Idea - Allow corporations to "buyout" overall control of 1 ihub in their militias controlled systems of their war zone.
Allow CEO/Directors etc of this corp to do things like :-
> turn off gate guns/make them not shoot their corp when aggression neuts
> Modify type and number of NPC rats in "outpost" regular re-spawning plexes
> Alter station service costs for corp/alliance/blues in system
> Possibilities for an epic amount of extras here
> Detail of how much LP to control system is of course important
To facilitate this add a LP wallet to corp wallets for FW corps.
Allow LP to be taxed at either the same or different rate to base corp tax.
My other idea.
Remove mission from FW.
Change all plexing LP pay outs to current T2 amounts.
Booster LP payouts for kills by 200-300% *
* Be careful that this isnt broken and people can just kill alts to print LP
Also remove cross warzone plexing. Amarr/Minne Pilots can only run plex timers in their warzone, and vice versa for Cal/Gal.
Thoughts/opinions/feedback/suggestions.
Of course these are all just ideas that need debating, discussing and adding to/removing but I do genuinely think that both changes would benefit FW massively. |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
60
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 19:58:21 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved |
HTC NecoSino
No Vacancies
142
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:17:30 -
[3] - Quote
In regards to the buyout, just make it mini-NS and have a deployable that grants you "control" over the FW forces in that system. If hostiles, or hell, even another friendly corp that wants control, destroy it, you lose control. |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
60
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:20:22 -
[4] - Quote
HTC, thank you for the feedback, that feels like something of a kop out.
Rather than require FW groups to start worrying about sov blockade units and structure grinding I would rather the occupancy of a system still be controlled via plexing.
Currently when an offensive plex is finished by hostiles in a system, it takes LP from the iHub, with my suggestions this mechanic would mean that plex control would diminish the groups hold on system, rather than a structure bash.
|
Thorin Matarielle
Shirak SkunkWorks
Amarrian Commandos
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:31:44 -
[5] - Quote
Ooh I like these ideas mate!!
+1
Hate fw missions anyway havent done a singe one even when we were in T5 lol. :) |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:34:42 -
[6] - Quote
Cheer Thorin :)
Nice to hear a few have managed to avoid the scourge of FW mission, alas I did a few some months back to farm a bit lol.
Hope to see some more skunks bros here as well GÖÑ |
Thorin Matarielle
Shirak SkunkWorks
Amarrian Commandos
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:37:25 -
[7] - Quote
Varrinox wrote:Cheer Thorin :)
Hope to see some more skunks bros here as well GÖÑ
Too bad we are not getting any killmail for supporting ideas on forum... All of my corpmates would've been here already. :) I let them know tho... :D |
Dio Papa
Shirak SkunkWorks
Amarrian Commandos
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:46:11 -
[8] - Quote
+1 |
Arla Sarain
283
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 20:48:55 -
[9] - Quote
Why is LP corp tax not there?
Some of these are nice.
EDIT: DERP its so late I didnt see. |
Nikolai Agnon
Dirt 'n' Glitter
4
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:00:55 -
[10] - Quote
Home systems already exist in a player-driven context. Examples include DnG living in Egghelende, Calibrated Chaos living in Siseide, LNA/Periphery used to live in Huola, etc. There currently already are benefits to upgraded infrastructure hubs, however they're poorly implemented and affect everyone, even those not part of the FW content. I would like to see these benefits expanded upon; I don't feel these points necessarily are the proper direction. Something I love about FW is that everyone is on the same side. Sure there are big players who matter more than others, but everyone is in the same militia. Moving system control to corporation/alliance ownership would just make FW a new theme of 0.0sov. Please no.
As it is, ihub benefits are practically meaningless. There's no strategic importance to systems having upgraded hubs other than less stable systems require less upkeep in order to keep the tier high (which, again, is militia-wide).
Single entities being able to control systems is not the right way to bring about change. The challenge, then, is to design benefits that apply to everyone in the militia that makes use of an upgraded 'home system', without favoring only a single corp or alliance and without making the system uncontestable by the opposing militia. Things like lowered repair bills, 0% market taxation, increase in LP payout against other players, reduced system cost indices for industry, reduced tower fuel cost, etc.
Better system-wide benefits for the faction would be pretty sweet, and meaningful in the context of corps setting up staging fortresses. Making systems "claimable" by individual corps/alliances would not be the way to go, though. Making it extra hard for people to plex should be player-handled, not npc-handled. |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
65
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:21:19 -
[11] - Quote
Cheers for the input Nikolai.
All good views.
Main point of contention I see with yours in the plex modifier suggestion as you want it to be done by players.
I envisage plexes in HQ systems requiring a group of, lets say 5/6 minimum dudes, to run, requiring some form of logi to tank, and reasonable DPS, with the need to "tackle" rats.
This encourages group play and makes the groups that do come field a PvP looking gang thus giving the better chance of a fight.
I am very aware of the problem of turning plexing into something of a grind vs NPCs rather than hold the field vs hostile players. Perhaps a good way of avoiding this is that if when a pilots from different FW sides are in the plex the NPCs go inactive and plex timer stops? This would stop the NPCs from ruining a fight and also avoid abuse of an alt in other militia being used to break the NPCs AI.
I am 100% with you on the keeping it away from player placed structures and based upon plexing as they are a key mechanic in FW space restricting fights in way no other space has.
Keep the discussion going everyone, the more input we have the more I can go and work with when I write up more detailed information for these ideas.
GÖÑ |
Nikolai Agnon
Dirt 'n' Glitter
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 21:32:57 -
[12] - Quote
A system that stays upgraded because people live there implies they are willing to defend it. Your proposed changes would allow a militia to merely upgrade systems to prevent contest, compared to an occupancy-based sovereignty system, where "home systems" are already incredibly hard to capture due to players actually staging out of those systems. If anything, I feel the PvE should be made easier, if not kept the same. What's the point of defending a system if the game already makes it challenging to contest, whereas an hour of afk d-plexing will undo all their work by morning? |
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Hoplite Brigade
66
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 22:19:23 -
[13] - Quote
DnG base out of Egglehende? *facepalms* Guys you control 86% of the warzone and you base out of the last resort Amarr fallback system? Have some self respect!
Regardless of that I agree that things can be done with the sovereignty system to improve life in the warzone. Although DnG would have to move INTO it to receive the benefits...
How about removing all system bonuses from neutrals? Why should they get benefits for not contributing?
'Buying' an I-HUB for a corp would be good, although what you then allow corps to do with that enhanced control would have to be carefully thought through. You don't want enemy militia alts creating a corp in your militia - buying a system and then turning off all defences to make system flipping easier. I can also see farmers abusing such a system.
If you were to de-link the militias it would be fun to expand the war to all factions and put direct links between the warzones although losing access to more high sec may be annoying.
I agree the current system bonuses are not worth much.
One bonus I would like to see if the 'owning' corp or alliance can dictate docking rights to system stations - pirates GTFO :)
But yeah nice thoughts in principle... |
Plato Forko
Forko Nanorobotics
126
|
Posted - 2015.02.10 23:15:42 -
[14] - Quote
i agree that it would be nice to see militia given some natural advantage over the pirate power blocs but i feel that it would just lead to militia power blocs that would be even more harmful to the solo and small-gang skirmishing that represents a lot of what FW is about.
There's nothin' like skating away from a fight with the hull on fire, some mods burned out and a cargohold full of loot.
See my terribad blog for stories.
|
Chabee Keikira
Shirak SkunkWorks
Amarrian Commandos
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 00:19:02 -
[15] - Quote
BIG LIKE Varrinox! |
Ovv Topik
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
689
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:02:30 -
[16] - Quote
Varrinox wrote:Ello ladies and gents.
Idea - Allow corporations to "buyout" overall control of 1 ihub in their militias controlled systems of their war zone.
Allow CEO/Directors etc of this corp to do things like :-
> turn off gate guns/make them not shoot their corp when aggression neuts
> Modify type and number of NPC rats in "outpost" regular re-spawning plexes
> Alter station service costs for corp/alliance/blues in system
> Possibilities for an epic amount of extras here
> Detail of how much LP to control system is of course important
Add the ability to name (fly your corp flag) in the system info like nul sov systems, and they'd be throwing their LP at you.
"Nicknack, I'm in a shoe in space, on my computer, in my house, with a cup of coffee, in't that something." - Fly Safe PopPaddi. o7
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3173
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 01:46:44 -
[17] - Quote
i would like to see some form of passive defense bonus when the system is fully upgraded. 1% auto-decontesting per day or so, not too much. (only active when system is below a certain percentage)
less decontesting in inactive systems means more time to contest active systems.
and i would also spend lp to reset timers in plexes if the contester runs away. (e.g new feature of the FW beacon).
CCP's typical response to timer resets or FW topics in genaral.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
69
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 05:26:18 -
[18] - Quote
Census from everyone seems to be that the suggestions are a good idea, but of course the devil is in the detail.
Bienator - idea about some kind of passive de contested system I can maybe get behind, but what would the setup be like, if a system has no wartargets complete a plex for [x] amount of hours it would then start to reduce contested rate at [x] rate per time period?
Ovv Topik - There will of course be an obvious easy to see section of the owners and their e-peen. I imagine the sov section in top left can have for example, "Amarr Empire - Dirt 'n' Glitter" also, the iHub can have the corp/allaince logo above it perhaps.
Plato - It's not just purely about giving FW pilots a straight advantage, its mostly about making FW more engaging via a variety changes which will encourage people to participate in FW rather than pirate in the area. Agreed on the encourging small gang skirmish, this is a stable of FW and good working plex mechanics can help this.
Nameira - I agree with you about DnG living outside warzone, and eveyr other entity doing the same. But half of that is because there is no real incentive to actually live in the warzone. You make a good point that the iHub buyout mechanic benefits need be well thought out.
* The controlling corp to control docking rights to neutrals is a big suggestions and personally I don't think locking neutrals out of stations is a good call, but will keep it in my mind * |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 06:55:15 -
[19] - Quote
*FW missions* are not inherently bad. It is their Solo focused LP gains that are much higher, thus much better, than plexing that drives pilots into the easiest mode of running them cheaply, more safely, with the shortest time in skill investment = Bombers. What are bombers? What are t3's? I might be blowing steam by this point, but my idea to bring balance to FW missions is to restrict t2 and t3 hulls from entering the mission complex acceleration gate. An easy, overnight, and overwhelming fix.
*Defensive plexing* can be balanced out by nerfing the payout and applying an automated donation TOWARDS the iHub, much in the same way that offensive plexing vamps LP away from it. This will remove the terribly sorry LP gained from low contested Dplexing of an important system by giving it a secondary award towards system level (aside from defensive LP gains) and avoid any hassle in trying to introduce a gimmicky passive de-contestation mechanic that could possibly lead to an invincible fortress. Again, this does nothing for the plague of stabbed d-plexing currently, but dual-timers at least can be a temporary solution, aside from the nerfed income, that will enable agressors to practice LP denial tactics. At least until we figure out a better way to go about changes that can be threaded into the lore, and not just for the game's sake.
*PVP payouts* could be accumulated in some kind of pilot journal where you can be rewarded, much like the R&D Agents passive LP, but that you be paid in enemy navy tags of your choice by the balance of your killing blows with points based on ship type and tech lvl. Please remember we still loot the carcasses even today; pvp isk is currently not bad. Also, perhaps give us points for killing pirate players, dependant on their sec status on the time of the kill? To buy sec tags perhaps? Maybe this could just be a Concord thing across all New Eden?
*System Upgrades* could possibly involve permanent cyno-jamming @lvl5? Leave the rats. A system that is inhabited should be actively defended. Station ship repair costs are currently in effect, as are tower fuel cost reductions as well, if i'm not mistaken. Also, our bonuses to faction standing already helps us in refining efficiency, but maybe it can receive a slight boost to encourage low-sec industrial ventures? People constantly undermine the strong arm of a production capable FW entity. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
77
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 07:10:46 -
[20] - Quote
One last note on cross-faction plexing. I don't have a problem with it. If you remove the ability of abnormal donations directly related to FW mission grinding on easy mode (bombers), then you really remove a massive portion of the **** swinging in tier control, thus making lack of offensive plexing a thing of the past.
You don't want to take away the great meta of having the ability to call for the help of what is, by the lore, rightfully so, an allied faction, just like when JustK held back the Huola campaign for a few days. You want to keep that kind of engagement possible. Not being able to shoot the hubs is a kick in the nuts enough.
Once again, I stress with all my mighty lungs, that FW mission farming has killed the desire in many pilots to keep on the plex fighting. Will it cause everything to crumble? No. Gallente militia is living proof that you can be great pilots by adapting to your environment. An environment without solo bomber capable missioning. |
Ben Ishikela
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 12:11:32 -
[21] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:*FW missions*
*Defensive plexing*
*PVP payouts*
*System Upgrades*
What he said!
*LP Savings* Previous stacks of LP earned in previous situations have impact on ISK/LP ratio in the now. A process that decreases the amount of "LP in Wallet" by 0.X % each downtime for every player, would help the ratio to react quicker. So that changes in Tiers or from patches affect player behavior more directly.
*Frontline* If, just if, plexes would only spawn in systems bordering a system belonging to an enemy faction. -->Effects?
Less Plexes => More Fights over plexes => increased difficulty to complete a plex
increased difficulty & No Missions => more ISK/LP => more players (not only farmers i hope)
if missions still exist, a completed mission should contribute to the contestedness like a complex does. (maybe with the option to select an enemysystem on agent's window). To give back players the opportunity to attack behind enemy lines.
Defend your homesystem!, because it will be even harder to take it back, if there is no neighbor.
I hope this promotes Teamplay. If it does not, scrap it ;)
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
411
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:34:17 -
[22] - Quote
If you read the minutes from the CSM there is info in there on why LP tax isn't around. Do I think it would be worth a substantial rewrite of the entire LP system to make it happen? Maybe.
It all comes down to developer hours and what other projects would have to get pushed back to make it happen. However, if they could work it in on the corp changes over the next few releases, it would make many people, including myself, very happy.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM9-WS-D3.txt
"Sugar brought back a topic from the Summer Summit about the ability to tax LP which has been requested by some FW corporations. CCP Fozzie responded that this would not be possible without a rework of LP entirely. The current system is not a monetary system but is a player reward. It would be a substantial rewrite of the entire LP system to make it happen."
With regards to lp payouts for kills, I don't know anyone who is against it within FW, and there is yet more information in the CSM minutes.
"Sugar Kyle brought up a suggestion about looking at the Loyalty Point (LP) payout in FW. The LP needed across the tiers was discussed. One suggestion to improve PvP rewards was pegging the PvP LP payouts at Tier 5. They cannot go higher." |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
79
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 15:53:49 -
[23] - Quote
Ben Ishikela wrote:Oreb Wing wrote:*FW missions*
*Defensive plexing*
*PVP payouts*
*System Upgrades* What he said! *LP Savings* Previous stacks of LP earned in previous situations have impact on ISK/LP ratio in the now. A process that decreases the amount of "LP in Wallet" by 0.X % each downtime for every player, would help the ratio to react quicker. So that changes in Tiers or from patches affect player behavior more directly. *Frontline* If, just if, plexes would only spawn in systems bordering a system belonging to an enemy faction. -->Effects? Less Plexes => More Fights over plexes => increased difficulty to complete a plex increased difficulty & No Missions => more ISK/LP => more players (not only farmers i hope) if missions still exist, a completed mission should contribute to the contestedness like a complex does. (maybe with the option to select an enemysystem on agent's window). To give back players the opportunity to attack behind enemy lines. Defend your homesystem!, because it will be even harder to take it back, if there is no neighbor. I hope this promotes Teamplay. If it does not, scrap it ;)
Restricting plex spawning to bordering enemy systems could overwhelm some people, as Gallente could, for LoLz, let every system fall with the exception of staging systems just to bring all the pvp to us. This would also hit solo in back water areas, where there are many roamers still. There would be no reason for me to go there, so hunters stop frequenting those areas as well.
Allowing missioners to choose spawn area would not work in some cases to promote aggressive tactics. I think it would actually be taken advantage of and pilots would bear around in non-station or low population systems, were they able to choose.
The maths on the first part went so far over my head that I didn't feel the wind on my baldness. |
Enlal Nemeth
Shirak SkunkWorks
Amarrian Commandos
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.11 19:13:59 -
[24] - Quote
Me likey +1 |
Varrinox
Dirt 'n' Glitter
72
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 09:48:10 -
[25] - Quote
Ok, so as often happen with any thread talking about a few changing of mechanics this has opened up a lot of questions and other suggestions. All of which are valid and should be considered. But for the sake of keeping this thread concise and useful, let us focus on 1 topic of discussion.
> Thoughts on allowing FW corps to have some kind of control over a system
> a simple Good idea or Bad idea answer for now.
> If yes, what kind of controls?
> If no, why not?
A good wide ranging discussion is always good but in the format of forums I feel like I should have directed this thread a bit more specifically.
Cheers <3 |
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Hoplite Brigade
67
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 12:48:07 -
[26] - Quote
My thoughts:
It is a good idea in principle.
Instead of 'buying' an I hub have it linked to both system tier and corp LP generation. This means that a system would have to be Tier 4/5 and the militia corp that is most active in defending the system gains control. This would be to stop griefers/farmers/enemy spies from simply undermining the genuine 'occupiers' of the system by pressing the 'buy I hub' button first.
Give a limited mixture of bonuses to turn on/off and a timer for how long they stay active before they can be changed. This would then encourage militia co-operation to specialise home systems for different uses. E.g The Amarr owners of Huola could select bonuses to encourage it becoming a militia trade hub, meanwhile the Amarr owners of Lasleinur want to encourage milita fleets to use their system as a forward base to attack Minmatar systems so choose to ignore trade bonuses and turn on things like repair discounts etc.
Also give 1 or 2 big deal bonuses for the owners. E.g. The ability to turn off/on a cyno jammer and dictate station docking rights based on their corp standings (I.e none blues to DnG could not dock in a DnG home system). This would give the owning corp some real power over anyone looking to use their space. This would also mean that neutrals would have to take real militia forces (the ones who can maintain home systems) seriously.
Not sure about ability to influence Plex mechanics as that could be open to abuse but in willing to listen as to how that can work. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
413
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 14:37:52 -
[27] - Quote
Varrinox wrote:
> Thoughts on allowing FW corps to have some kind of control over a system
> a simple Good idea or Bad idea answer for now.
> If yes, what kind of controls?
> If no, why not?
No. If I want SOV mechanics on a per system basis I can go to null. Any more advantages for the defender would make taking defended systems near impossible.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
2791
|
Posted - 2015.02.12 18:55:59 -
[28] - Quote
+1 for LP tax. My corp needs funds to purchase a couple Titans that are nearly useless for FW ops. I sincerely believe that "gates are for peasants" and it's high time we stop using them.
JUSTK is recruiting.
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
81
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 18:27:31 -
[29] - Quote
I would love to see a limit of one office per station for alliance. This may seem grueling,but it would force expansion and indirectly create more' home' systems, while avoiding murder nests.
A manipulated/player controlled system-wide cyno inhibitor is to OP. One that comes on automatically at tier V would/could create some interesting dynamics and encourage caps to peasant travel.
LP designated control would end with disaster, as those who ' bought' the iHub would be outdone by a spai farmer that runs the pathetic low contested plexes until they have control of system utilities. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
Spaceship Bebop
417
|
Posted - 2015.02.13 18:35:05 -
[30] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:I would love to see a limit of one office per station for alliance. This may seem grueling,but it would force expansion and indirectly create more' home' systems, while avoiding murder nests.
That right there is one hard core idea. I'm not sure what I think of it yet beyond, "Oh My Goodness"!
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |