Fill disclosure from me.

Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.

And data cores certainly are isk faucets.

please dont lock us out of enemy systems there are enough alts and spys as it is to get stuff done.

I agree that we should not be locked out of stations, but for a different reason. Being locked out of stations in enemy territory will reduce the amount of available PvP and make people more risk averse.

Why, do you ask?

Because if this change is implemented and you lose a ship, you'll be forced to fly to non-enemy space in order to re-ship. That will SUCK and make people more risk averse - not because they'll lose their ship, but because they might have to go 10 jumps out in order to get something new to fly.

Also, what happens to all my assets currently in enemy territory, or assets in a system when occupancy changes? Or I'm out on a roam in enemy territory but it's time for me to log - I can't dock up? Personally I don't mind logging off in space, I do it all the time (I prefer it to stations), but a lot of people will not like that at all.

No thank you. This would be a terrible move for the more casual nature of FW.

If you want to do something with the stations, then make repair services cost more, have a very high market transaction tax, whatever - but don't restrict docking.

Fill disclosure from me.

Isk faucet is not something I made up. It is ccp terminology from the economics presentation. The economy is primarily driven by isk faucets and isk sinks.

And data cores certainly are isk faucets.

I don't see it as that big a deal honestly. It's not like you're pushed out of your area completely, you can always fall back to high sec or elsewhere and continue to fight. You can never be fully pushed out of the warzone. Not to mention it also serves the function of establishing an organic frontline, since you won't be able to maintain operations too far from your own space due to logistics and enemy reinforcements.

Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.

One Question.

If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?



Yes. We're back and actively recruiting your spy alts.

AX

The simple rules for what is an ISK faucet vs sink:

- If the ISK moves from your account into another player's account, it is neither a faucet or sink.
- If the ISK moves from your account into an NPC's account (removing it from circulation), it is a sink.
- If the ISK moves from an NPC's wallet into yours (bounties, NPC buy orders, mission rewards), it's a faucet.

Yes to LP for kills (provided it cant be exploited by killing alts)

Yes to LP for plexes

Yes to less LP for missioning, and to balancing the missions properly (i.e no more stealth bombers farming)

Yes to things that provide lots of good fights and some isk to fund them

No to spending LP on system upgrades and cyno jammers

No to station lockouts

No to 0.0 sov-lite

the missions have to be changed to make it absolutly impossible to do them in stealth bombers!!!.

Making occupancy mean something is a good thing in general BUT it's importand that it scales well for the loosing side, otherwise people will just join the winning side and the other side will just quit due to facing insane odds

Maybe scale rewards

Also a milita needs some kind of council or leadership that can remove obvious spies from their milita

Make Fleet adverts better so i can allow all players from my milita to join and only disallow the known spies that i have set to -5 or -10 because atm this is not possible with the fleet finder

FW players do not want FW to be anything like 0.0. We don't want blob warfare. We don't want CTA's or the necessity for them. We dont want supercapital blobs to ruin our fun. FW should not be like "I have to login and play otherwise we are going to loose the System and are screwed :(" but more like "I want to login because there is a System to fight over and there is a lot of fun to be had! :)"

Oh and another thing about FW being that casual no drama pvp, one HUGE advantage over null or WH is that if you need to go because your dog just peed or the door bell goes, "brb guys" and dock up - WE LOVE THIS ABILITY, not everyone has infinite time to waste of getting around and logging safe for some pvp.

One Question. If the Caldari take all the systems again, can we get another medal?

This Fanfest presentation focused on bringing long term improvements to Factional Warfare. We first exposed the flaws currently present this feature, before moving on to suggestions on how to improve it.

GÇóFirst in line is to provide proper consequences by denying docking access to stations located in enemy space and allowing players to upgrade their captured solar systems by spending FW LPs into the Control Bunker.

Great Idea. If nothing else, this needs to be done.

GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.

Why?Turning FW into another Isk faucet is not a good idea, nor is it to try and lure people into FW because they have to to do invention.Also kinda screws everyone who went and researched skills and then ground missions to get RP.

GÇóAfter that, we approached the concept of War Zone Control, giving long term impact to this feature by adjusting Factional Warfare LP store prices depending on how well your side is doing in the war.

Meh, the problem with that is you are gonna have one side get buried and nor be able to dig themselves out ever. Losing access to stations is enough.the ability to run FW missions is also enough reward, and enough penalty if the systems that hold your factions FW agents fall, and you can no longer access them to run them to begin with.LP store changes are not such a good idea.

GÇóWe also discussed cosmetic changes, like removing Occupancy and causing Factional Warfare to affect Sovereignty instead, or renaming Control Bunkers to Infrastructure Hubs for consistency reasons with null-security space.

NO.we do not want sov warfare, or the game mechanics that come with it. No infrastructure exists, and rightly so. The change in title would be a misnomer.the title Command Bunker is appropriate, as that is all it really does, is signify and in theory excercise command and contol over the State assets in system.

GÇóWe approached the subject of Factional Warfare complexes, and how they should be improved by giving NPCs PvP like attributes while making sure they are consistent for each faction. We also brought forward the idea of giving LPs for capturing such complexes, that would be stolen from the enemy Infrastructure Hub in the system.

OK

GÇóWe talked about PvP kills, and how to make them more rewarding in Factional Warfare by giving LPs as a proportional value of the ship lost, plus its modules and cargo.

OK

GÇóLack of visibility is also a problem we would like to tackle, by improving the Factional Warfare Militia pages, creating proper leaderboards for players to compare themselves from, and improving system notifications.

OK

GÇóThe EVE-DUST link was also brought forward, as we discussed possibilities to have both EVE complexes and DUST matches affect a Factional Warfare solar system status.

No.

GÇóWe then discussed a general decrease to passive Datacore gains, as we want to add Datacore offers in the FW LP stores.

I think posting in two threads about the same is not that positiv.

Maybe a Community Representive can merge the thread in the General Forum and this one for that all discussion is in the same place. (or start a new one while closing the old ones?)

A quick overview what player-suggestions the DEV think about would be nice for those that had no chance to be on one of the round tables at fanfest.