Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 04:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
I couldn't find a thread specifically geared towards feedback in relation to the 2012 EVE Fanfest Factional Warefare keynote so I figured I would create one where everyone could throw in their thoughts about factional warfare.
If you have not yet seen the Factional Warefare keynote you can find it on CCP's Youtube Channel, specifically here.
Other key notes specifically provided by CCP are provided in the Fanfest 2012 playlist here.
My biggest point of this thread is to create a place where CCP can view all of our requests and thoughts about the changes coming to factional warfare as announced at Fanfest 2012.
The following is my personal feedback and is not intended to be the direction of the thread, however feel free to use the Like button or comment on my ideas freely.
First and foremost, the changes are good over all, but in my opinion the balancing methods chosen are not ideal.
LP Reward System: From my understanding the updated reward system provides both discounts and increases in LP gains solely through control of territory. Additionally, it is specifically mentioned that CCP wants to provide more benefit to the ranking system. In response, I offer the following changes in regards to the LP reward system:
1) Provide Increased LP Gains based on militia rank
- Reason: LP is essentially the primary method of pay for militia. In real life, military pay is based on rank. As you increase in rank, you gain bonuses to your LP gain.
2) LP Cost Reduction Remains Tied to Territory Controlled
- Reason: The more territory controlled by a faction, the more resources they will have. In turn this equates into more assets and being able to offer those assets to their militants at lower cost.
To balance the two above points and prevent the faction hopping that was the concern of several participants that were at fanfest I propose that you can freely join and leave faction warfare. However, if you move from the Amarr Militia to another Militia, you lose your entire rank with the Amarr Militia, thus removing the earned LP payout bonuses.
Participation Penalties (Standings Hits): As in stands now there is one sole reason that I will not participate in factional warfare because of. That is because when you participate in factional warfare and kill an enemy... You lose standings with their faction. Believe me, I agree this does make perfect sense. However as a game mechanic I think it should be removed. My reasons are as follows:
- Factional Warfare is supposed to be an introduction to PVP. However new players are not educated about standings hits and in some cases do not understand the standings system at all. A new player could in turn find themselves in a position of being unable to succeed at the combat but still be penalized for participating thus creating a situation where new players can wind up in a perpetual torrent of fail that could eventually wind up in destruction of their assets even after leaving factional warfare. That's not a great way to bring new players in.
- As an existing player, my standings are precious. I do not want to participate in a type of PVP that will adversely affect my ability to operate in any part of space once removing myself from that activity. This is why I do not participate in piracy and suicide ganks. It is also why I am deterred from factional warfare, despite a massive interest in it.
- The only real way to recover standings lost through factional warfare penalties is to grind it off using the mission running system. This system is something players such as myself absolutely abhore. The fact that I would have to participate in mission running to clean up from a PVP activity in order to be mobile while not part of the faction is ridiculous, in my opinion
In conclusion, I believe that standings penalties for engaging faction warfare players and NPC's should be removed. There should not be a hidden penalty for participating. Especially when the feature is supposed to be friendly to new players. [ [ALDEB] Aldebaran Foundation (Recruiting Industry & PvE Players) [HISEC] ] |
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 04:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bump to see if anyone else has feedback on this topic. [ [ALDEB] Aldebaran Foundation (Recruiting Industry & PvE Players) [HISEC] ] |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 12:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Control Bunker Suggestive cosmetic and size change of this object sounds great. However, its purpose could be re-imagined with DUST 514.
Control Bunker would be a universal beacon indicating where the frontline of battle is. Upon sovereignty transition, Militia are alerted of this solarsystem's presumable intense activity and so Militia migrate to this solarsystem, fueling the war: intensifying the battle. Control Bunker would be the solarsystem's sovereignty transition threshold, too. This means upon attacking it the system begins a count-down timer and triggers DUST 514 'Quick Game' selection. Space victories and planet victories decrease the countdown timer contributing to a faster result. NPC Incursions can intrude making for an interesting additional threat. This would layer additional objectives in claiming a solarsystem via the Control Bunker. (remove Sansha's Nation & attack Control Bunker: transition timer begins) Summery: + Control Bunker is the indication of a persevering battle within that solarsystem. This tells Militia players to get in this system before failure. + NPC Incursions can prolong a solarsystem sovereignty capture and add additional layer of Militia objective.
Militia Services
Quote:'Upon shiploss as a Militant, your Combat Shipline or Attack Shipline is automatically replaced with an economized (TECH1) branded version of Navy Issue ships. Your reimbursed ship-class depends on your Militia Rank. This service also includes economized (TECH1) Navy Issue modules prompt with Fitting options for your role. This service cannot be abused. If you lose your ship again within time, you will not be reimbursed. This is to maintain finances so if you haven't learned after your failures, it's your own fault!'
Note: Faction Warfare Militia reimbursements cannot be resold on the Market nor should they be reprocessed. Militia Services support your war efforts. It prolong any solarsystem warfare activity that much longer, and planning ahead by relocating Medical Clone is dire for rapid response. A militia fleet can co-ordinate this, which could easily be your empire's winning ticket. Enemies would do the same in adjacent solarsystems locking Militia into battle.
Militant Manufacturers would craft to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and a Navy Issue BPC to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank. Militant Traders would buy-sell to trade T1 variations of Militia Service ships for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points and ISK to continue their war effort. This also increases Rank. Militant Harvesters/miners would harvest to trade resources for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points This makes 'Militia Agents' offer Manufacturers a craft order for substantial amounts of Loyalty Points. This also increases Rank. :: Their roles contribute to sustaining the local Constellation battle efforts of your Militia's combatants. Loyalty Points can be decidedly donated to upgrade solarsystems, as the Fanfest keynote suggests, as well as improve Constellation-wide Militia services.
Summery: + Medical Clone planning. + Militia Rank-based ship reimbursement. (inc. pre-set Selection of modules for your role) + Focusing combat activity. + Giving Militia roles for non-combatant players.
Faction Standing: Suggested by original post, I deny the standing loss of players. Remember this is a sandbox game. Your decisions affect players, and you decided to offer your military support to your faction. However, there still can be a way! The principle of Black Ops comes to mind. By becoming a hidden identity know-one knows who you are, and so you would not lose Standings! (Check this thread about Clandestine Shiplines)
Summery: Black Ops can deny Standings loss but at an increased risk of friendly-fire death. |
CaleAdaire
Gunnery Solutions Incorporated
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 15:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'm actually really impressed with both posts. These are some well thought out ideas, and that is rare in F&I.
Aldan- -As for the standings hit, at first I thought it was a horrible idea, but your layout and reasoning make it sensible that they remove that. -And your LP/Rank system make way more sense now than the current system. But there is a danger of guys getting to General and then running LvL 1's just to farm the LP's from them. Maybe a system where an Ensign gets 500 LP for a LvL 1 but a General only gets 50 because he is way over skilled. This will work to keep the higher guys in higher areas and almost ensure that there will be no predation on newer guys and that this doesn't become the new farming activity. Please stop asking for new stuff "Cuz it's neat".-á
|
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
The thread you are looking for is in General Discussion. |
Rimase
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
11
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 11:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Haulered to other thread. :D |
Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation Tauri Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.01 13:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
I did the same. Thanks for the heads up. I personally however feel the other thread is in the wrong place though. After all the topic is a discussion on features and ideas. Honestly though we need an "In Development" forum. [ [ALDEB] Aldebaran Foundation (Recruiting Industry & PvE Players) [HISEC] ] |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |