EVE-Search ForumWatch

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Anarich

Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:10:00 +0000

Being an avid capitalistic, doesn't seem a direct way to make much money off of Faction Wars, though maybe the price increase in tritanium commodities is partially the result of faction wars. Most militaries pay their enlistees some wage. So I vote for wages in accordance with their military position to be paid as long as they are active participants and follow orders and aren't awol. Capturable territory needs to exist. Or maybe a capturable target perhaps of some symbolic or politic value. People need to be rewarded with rank and maybe bonuses for achieving certain goals.

In summary enlistees blow other factions up, make money from wages, buy new ships, items, and stuff and have fun. Manufacturers and miners make more money. Win win. Maybe sales tax paid to the npc markets could also be used to fund the faction wars.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Anselm's MajorDomo

Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:01:00 +0000

As an industrialist, what I would like to see is Faction dropboxes for resources. I would like to support the war effort by donating ammo, ships, or even raw minerals in contested regions that FW allies could then access. I have few PvP skills, but I can mine and manufacture like a god. There are probably others like me who want to aid their Faction, but aren't especially good fighters, and I'd be willing to risk hauling equipment to stations in contested space if my allies who docked there could then have access to this equipment based on a hiearchy of their Faction Status and number of enemy kills.

Maybe once every two weeks, as an in-game event, a mission announcement could appear stating that a dropbox window will be open for 48 hours at one or more of the stations in contested space. During this time, whatever cargo, minerals, equipment is brought in by a faction and deposited there will be stored and later made available to FW allies with [the important bit] matching funds/equipment provided by NPC station-owners. FW would need to fleet up to escort this equipment and deposit in the dangerzone. Meanwhile, the enemy faction would get a mission announcement statement that from NPC spies that, for the next 48 hours, their enemy will be depositing warfare materiel at X base, and they can fleet up and try and block gates leading to that system or cover the area around the station. If they can stop the shipment, they can claim cargo as loot for their side or at least prevent it from falling into the hands of the opponent with (and thus block the possibility "matching equipment" resources coming from the station-owner).

Industrialists could earn FW status with their faction for so many ISK worth of deposits/donations, and possibly even eventually earn some sort of honory support medals for truly large deposits.

This would allow logistics and supply to enter the game in a realistic way. The player would know the donated materials would effectively be "doubled" for others on his side when they are first deposited--that's a strong incentive.

This would also encourage a lot of regional movement, because one week it would be important to get materials over HERE, and the next week it would be important to block the enemy from depositing materials over THERE, and so on, giving the game masters a chance to direct mass migrations where they want players to be, to help spread them out through space more evenly or concentrate them as needed.

Drawbacks? There'd need to be some way to "mark" the donated equipment and the "matching" funds or equipment the NPC station generates. Otherwise, folks would drop donations in the box, take them out, give them to another player, and then that player would drop it as a donation in the box so it would "double" with matching funds. Can't have endless doubling of that sort. That's why I think a 48 hour window makes sense. For 48 hours, players can dump the donations, but those donations cannot be accessed. At the end of that donation period-- or 2-3 days after that--when it is no longer possible to make donations, the donated equipment is processed and "matching" equipment/funds/minerals created. Those are then made available to FW players with sufficiently high status on a first-come, first-served basis to help offset lost ships, ammo, etc.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Matsutatsu

Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:55:00 +0000

I think that bounties for navy NPCs that can be collected only by militia members is a good idea.

While doing plexes may get boring sometimes, I don't agree with time reduction as this would drastically reduce the PVP while plexing. There would be no time to gather reinforcments from neighbouring systems etc. I would certainly miss my last 2 kills as these guys turned up pretty late.

Increasing number of plexers by increasing rewards would decrease the boredom. Try doing plexes near Hykanima. Pretty likely Dead Parrot Shoppe will turn up and provide entertainment.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dextrome

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 06:42:00 +0000

The way systems are taken needs to be changed. I don't know how people can stand orbiting for 10 or 20 minutes and doing that many times over without losing their minds. Why not just have npcs spawn till a system chief shows then killing that to clear the beacon. Maybe make them all tougher so more teamwork is needed.

Also FW needs more rewards, soon. Maybe do something crazy like have npcs have a chance of dropping navy mods. Or something even crazier, say put bounties on navy npcs which can only be collected by milita members. Something like 1mil for cruisers, 2mil for bcs and 3mil for battleships. Then offer isk rewards for clearing beacons, say 500k for a minor and 2mil for a major per person.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sillas Cov

Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:57:00 +0000

Devs

Love the game! BUT ya need to get real with THE most precious commodity in EVE: Time

When ratting for isk in High sec, you are not plexing for fun in low sec = EPIC fail of Fac War!!

Fac War is being severely compromised by the fact that players must Rat, Mission run and Mine to support PVP for Fac warfare.

Ive made a call for fleet action and find players are out making isk to support the ship loses.

Mainly by running lvl 4s I'd add.

SO here is a game based on pvp and players are being forced to interact with PVE to realize the actual PVP game play??

If the Factional State funded losses by as much as 60% then people would fight instead of rat.

I suggest that at the very least, near unlimited T1 cruzer losses should funded by the Fac Warfare missions/plex rewards/Plex rat loot drops.

This would get ppl out fighting in way bigger numbers and keep T1 ships in action to a much greater degree.

BTW Im finally having fun in EVE with PVP plexing in Low sec Black Rise, but see that ppl dont want to plex due to the cost of it and the few rewards involved over the long run.

Sillas

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Alica Wildfire

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:40:00 +0000

FW milita plexes - allow fire on neutrals

At the moment we can't defend our plex against "neutral", speak always pirates, invaders without letting them shoot first. While our NPC-rats are of cause allowed to shoot on these targets and these targets always and only come into our plex for a kill, we can nothing do to defend them.

Or if we do, we get security hits.

I think it would be better to give us shooting rights on anything not our militia inside a plex. Makes more sense and aligns with the behavior of the NPC.

Just my two cents, but I think all militia pilots will support this. For a neutral has nothing to do inside a military compound. He may not enter or will be shot on sight. I'm sick of getting security hits on legal targets. Thats a military area. We shoot on sight. This is the way it should be, from gamemechanics and from roleplay sight of view. I am doing FW for roleplay.

Easy change with no sideeffect, that aligns with the greater scope of the idea and gives us a chance to fight off that pirates in a fair way on even conditions. At the moment all milita pilots get security hits for just doing his duty.
--
FREEDOM, PUNK & AUTOCANNONS

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ikonia

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Cpt Cosmic
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 17/11/2008 10:16:05
neutrals should be looked at. it happened to me already several times and today too.
you have a fight and suddenly a "neutral" alt warps in and start remote repping the opposite faction without any consequences, no flashy red or anything and attacking them under sentries is not a possibility cause it would make it even worse for me.

do something against this.

also capturing system needs to have a meaningful reward. it is timeconsuming, has plenty of risks but no real reward.

The whole FW is good for nothing. No rewards but a title that doesnt proof anything but u have wasted a lot of time. No Help or support from the "system" you are fighting for, you only risk everything you have for nothing at all. At least the idea is good, but since there are no consequences or benefits it is a waste of time and just for those who have a wealthy main character and want to play around a bit in PVP by supporting a new char with bad skills and cheap ships used in huge blobs gatecamping. Not much of a war, not much of benefit, nothing for good = waste of time at the point of it is now :)

Greets, Iko

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cpt Cosmic

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:14:00 +0000

Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 17/11/2008 10:16:05
neutrals should be looked at. it happened to me already several times and today too.
you have a fight and suddenly a "neutral" alt warps in and start remote repping the opposite faction without any consequences, no flashy red or anything and attacking them under sentries is not a possibility cause it would make it even worse for me.

do something against this.

also capturing system needs to have a meaningful reward. it is timeconsuming, has plenty of risks but no real reward.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ikonia

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:38:00 +0000

FW from my opinion:

1.) it is a good idea, but lacks in details. In description it says, you can be attacked everywhere, even in high sec. But for example ships like the stealth bombers cannot cloak in enemy teritory whilst they are developed for exactly that. Would bring more fun to the whole thing.

2.) docking at opposing faction stations should be impossible.

3.) That u cant use things like interdictors and bombs in FW is against all logical thoughts in a war.

4.) to break the support lines of the opposing factions by attacking their plants/POS in highsec should be possible without being swarmed by myriards of navy within half a second.

5.) add some content for those who arent fighters in first point, but scanners, smugglers or explorers

6.) add some content that is thrilling for a BS fleet.

7.) populate the war by giving players a better financial support for their lost ships/implants by the navy. As long as i have to completely pay for risking my ship, lifem implants, ammo and and out of my own pocket, there is no point of doing it, since i dfont have a benefit but a crappy title which is of no use at all but posing.

8.) add modules and implants only available in FW and only useable while assigned to FW. As long as the there are no benefits but risking your expensive stuff, i dont see the point of doing it.

9.) add more complexitiy to the political system and its consequences to those in FW.

Greets Iko

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ollobrains2

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:26:00 +0000

Give us the long promised low sec sub faction FW systems ( aridia for example being ammatar) and all the other areas. Oh and the 0.0 NPC regions need to be implemented ( pirate factions) and more systems added to the empire low sec and also the npc 0.0 areas. Or at least more stations

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Soraya Silvermoon

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:52:00 +0000

We need true 0,0! where Factions really clash together over resources.

Give us back the good old 0,0 space and not the player run empire space we have today or the npc faction run 0,0 that's always been there.

Open new regions of space where there is illegal to anchor pos (factions would destroy them).

Add exploration content where you can find faction capital ship wrecks or even put capital ship npcs in the belts.

Add some fancy ore that all the miners simply must extract in addition to the huge rare roids that will grow up.

Add an area so big that miners have time to mine in between the pvp encounters rather than being jumped by a 30 man fleet 7 times an hour.

Add so many regions with so many gates that distance and size of area start limiting the size of pvp groups.
(How size limits blob size: Pvpers rather fly out as soon as they got 2-5 people if they are able to survive/find a similar sized target group, and they dont want to make 100 jumps in a big fleet that shows like a big blob on map and not find anything because all the scouts have announced their arrival days before.)

Add an area so big that Carriers wont get to the deepest areas on one tank of fuel (create demand for the transports or even make ice of all types available and add ice mining ships with built in refinery of course inferior to the ones already existing but with the ability to refine and size small enough to not take up to much space in the carrier.

Add empire border systems with gates in such numbers that the border camps are being spread out rather than just an impassable blob of alliance boredom.

Add faction npcs so the people who want standings with pirate factions can npc and loose faction standings instead. Maybe the solution for players who have done caldari navy missions for years but want to work for guristas to gain back their standings with the faction that is lost working for caldari navy?

Add battle stations (dockable but no services) with a set shield hp that can be used as safespots when logging off or simply seeking to chat and spin ship or waiting for area to cool down or to initiate player trading windows. The players of each faction could have fun batteling for and switching them to their side.

Add battle stations (dockable but limited or no services) with a set shield hp that can be used as safespots when logging off or simply seeking to chat and spin ship or waiting for area to cool down or to initiate player trading windows. The players of each faction could have fun batteling for and switching them to their side (note that we don't want the booring shield shooting for hours. just for a bit so that enemy have time to intercept. say 10 minutes of hp?)

Add some secret stuff and some storyline plot and Im a happy panda.

A faction warrior would have fun causing chaos in this area.
A miner could mine in 0,0 again without being forced into an alliance.
A pirate could ransom the miner and earn his keep again and the miner would make a profit never the less because of rare ore.
The same for npcers.
Pirates would have fun trying to catch and kill or ransom people cynoing their carriers in or out of deep regions with their loot. or try catch and kill/ransom the transports coming out.

Add battle stations (dockable but limited or no services) with a set shield hp that can be used as safespots when logging off or simply seeking to chat and spin ship or waiting for area to cool down or to initiate player trading windows. The players of each faction could have fun batteling for and switching them to their side (note that we don't want the booring shield shooting for hours. just for a bit so that enemy have time to intercept. say 10 minutes of hp?)

Pick and add ideas.. This is merely brainstorming.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithrandere

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:04:00 +0000

A bad idea.

- Not organised enough
- Not 'wary' enough
- Disjointed
- Did'nt realy bring any new dynamics to the game, it just made certain bits more accesible.
- Could have been much better had it been thought about more, maybe if players had been asked about it first too?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Matsutatsu

Sun, 9 Nov 2008 18:04:00 +0000

And I agree that something should be done about speed tanking in the plexes. There is something wrong when you could use T1 frigate to capture all the plexes. I don't think that npcs in plexes should be hard. Atm they can be pretty tricky in solo non-speed tanked ship. Just that it is wrong to have THE ship type for plexing. Speed tanked t1 frig for capturing small plexes and inty for capturing mediums would be ok. Really really good tracking for some NPCs in majors and just good tracking in mediums should be enough.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Matsutatsu

Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:54:00 +0000

This is basically an (improved) repost of thread. I missed this sticky before.

There seems to be a wide consensus that rewards for participating in FW should be better. There is also a lack of rewards for controlling FW systems. I propose a mechanism whereby militia members can convert their VPs into ISK by betting against enemy militia members on the system control. Sort of like officers putting their reputation in line by promising to capture or hold certain systems.

There is a betting period, weekly seems best, but could also be monthly or some other.
Players can place their VPs as bets on FW systems. For example 500 VP's on Tama, 20 VP's on Old Man Star.
When betting period ends, bets that were placed before the end of previous betting period will be repayed in ISK.

p: payout of ISK per VP in bet
o: total VP bet on system by own militia
e: total VP bet on system by enemy militia
b: base payout rate, some constant like 10,000 ISK

p = b * (e / o)

VPs in the bet are lost. You receive payout for only those systems that are controlled by your own militia.

Example:

Week 1:
Gallente players bet total 100,000 VPs on the control of Old Man Star (OMS).
Caldari players bet total 1,000 VPs on the control of OMS.

Gallente has e/o ratio of 1/100 on OMS, Caldari has e/o ratio of 100 on OMS.

Week 2:
If Gallente controls OMS when week 2 ends then those Gallente militia members who made bets on it receive 100 ISK per VP in the bet (10,000 * 1/100). Caldari receive nothing for their bets.
If Caldari controls OMS when week 2 ends then those Caldari militia members who made bets on it receive 1,000,000 ISK per VP in the bet (10,000 * 100). Gallente receive nothing for their bets.

To stop placing bets over old news, for example Caldari captures OMS and there is already a large Gallente bet on it, thus allowing Caldari players easy profit, I propose two rules.

No betting on vulnerable systems.
When system control is flipped there will be no more bets for the period.

This proposal should give players a reason to pick some systems that they want to protect or conquer. It should also encourage conflict and risk taking as bigger profits are in going against a large enemy bet. Unlike giving fixed rewards for capturing and holding that could easily become skewed towards either offence or defence, betting system is self-correcting. In boardgame design it is said that it is really hard to screw up with an auction or a betting system. At the moment capturing enemy systems is rare, so there would probably be large defensive bets that give small but likely payout and smaller offensive bets with improbable huge payout. It would also bring a new dimension to the game: trying to deduce enemy's intentions by the bets they have placed. Who, where and how much? Are they known to be dangerous?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sal Panucci

Wed, 5 Nov 2008 22:56:00 +0000

My thoughts from experience - I'm sure most/all have been voiced...

1. There is no real advantage to capturing a system. It takes a sizable amount of effort to capture a system, and what does it get you? Some arbitrary points in the war that make your faction look better. There needs to be a reason to take systems whether it be some form of docking rights (I know that's a large topic itself), perhaps small faction npc assistance in fights, watered down gate guns, free repairs, or whatever you can think up. But make there be a reason that gives more than bragging rights.

2. There is a lack of rewards for participation beyond the fun. How about a modification to FW LP stores that introduces some faction meta level 10 modules (one higher than currently available in lp stores) to make it comparable to the risks of running missions for pirate factions for implants - participation in faction war being the only way to get these modules. Also, how about a reward for scoring kill mails (reward proportional to difficulty with something to keep people from killing an alt in insured bs over and over for profit). A nice side effect of this could be an increase in solo/small gang pvp.

2a. How about some form of reward - bounty/lp/something else for getting kill mails. Give it to the person that gets the deathblow only to reward solo/small gang pvp and to keep people in large gangs from shooting one round at each enemy to appear on large ammounts of mails.

2b. Larger personal rewards for capturing complexes. The idea of gate restrictions is excellent for giving newer players in small ships an important role in the war (the best feature of FW imo). Make the rewards greater to encourage more participation and fights within complexes.

3. A corporation joining FW is very comparable to joining an alliance. Corps that sign up for FW should be excluded from wars. Make it so they cannot declare war or have war declared on them.

When I participated every FC in the Caldari militia with any leadership ability that formed a corporation was hit with at least one wardec. This severely limited their participation. Sure they can drop from the personal corp to avoid this, but being in a smaller group than the entire militia has many advantages just as having corps within an alliance has advantages.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Raimo

Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:27:00 +0000

Edited by: Raimo on 04/11/2008 07:30:28
Edited by: Raimo on 04/11/2008 07:29:59
Rewards for PVP would be great as there are no indirect rewards unlike 0.0 or hisec merc work and looting is not alvays as feasible in hectic and dynamic FW play as in a regular pirate gate camp. Maybe have a system where a reward will be given for popping a particular player only once per DT to reduce farming gains... A second, extranice reward for pods should be implemented though.

Make the rewards scale so that this would be just some little extra for the casual pewpewer and *maybe* allow a really succesful player to make a modest living. I.e. it doesn't have to be super profitable but *something* would be nice.

Oh, extra rewards for solo kills and a little less extra for small gangs would be super and also work nicely against blobbing... If there is only you on the KM, double LP/ISK, if less than 5-10 1,5 the reward or something. (Or a system that scales down from solo to 5-10+ in increments, having "normal" pay with a blob kill)

Yeah, that would be very cool.

Also, more rewards for plexing would be good as well, ofc scaled to the capturing gang's size as well with more rewards for a small plexing gang... I don't plex at all (at least with the current system) but I could see it again helping small gang pew.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by AkRoYeR

Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Not sure if anyone already suggested it, but to make FW more attractive consider making a SP bonus upon successful completion of X number of missions or after X number of enemy faction kills. For instance you kill 100 enemy players in fleet FW you get a bonus of 10,000 SP to put into whatever skill you choose.

There would of course need to be other stipulations to keep people from just fleeting up using their alts and going against a buddy and his alts sort of like SP farming.

Make the rewards more lucrative!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tessen

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Today, having sov or not in a system make no difference.
Gaining Sov should mean something more than a single change on top left (or right) in the UI.

Setting standing for a whole milicia (same as for an alliance) could be usefull.

Actualy it is possible to speed tank an hostile major plex with any MWD frigate.
Think this shold be fixed.
Easy solution : give webs and/or nos/neut to NPCs.

Any project about specific LP store in milicias ?
Maybe unique faction modules/ships.

FW is mainly a roaming/small fleets PVP.
Alliance have very strong production abilities and several capital pilots.
If alliances get in FW, it will becore a new capital blob war.
FW dont need alliances : there is already 4 alliances in FW : one for each empires.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by chatgris

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:00:00 +0000

So far I've been a hardcore carebear :) Factional warfare sounds interesting, but not at the expense of not being able to visit Jita. I don't want to cut off access to a significant portion of an already tiny empire.

If there was a way to covertly join factional warfare, e.g. hide your identity from the opposing NPC factions, I'd definitely give it a try in some disposable ships as a way to test the pvp waters.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hussain

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:29:00 +0000

Maybe this has been said before but there is a big problem with balance regarding plexes.
To speed tank a Caldari Plex you need about 6000m/s orbital speed, you can do this in a inty without too much effort. Still you will probbably get hitted a couple of times and you will be probbably dead if you bump into something and will die horribly if you run out of cap.
Now yesterday I saw a Condor speed tanking a Gallente Major Compound, in spite of 7 "Elite" frigates, a dozen Cruisers and 5 Battleships. It was going arround 1300m/s and after talking with the pilot (a 3 month old character) he claimed it could go as low as 1000m/s and still speed tank it, try to do that in a Caldari plex and see how long you last.
I have not tried Amarr and Minmatar plexes but I think that the Minmatar plexes will be hard as well becouse they tend to have some missile capability but Ammarr plexes should be easy to tank also becouse of the lack of missiles.
This brings 2 problems to bear:
1. Some navies are too weak, poor tracking and poor range or just poor tracking compared with missiles.
2. With the incoming speed nerf 6000m/s may not be attainable while 1000m/s will probabbly be.
As it is now the situation is imbalanced if everything stays the same after the nerf it will become impossible to have something akin to balance.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CoLe Blackblood

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:06:00 +0000

Faction allies need to be auto-purple!!!!

Adding another tab to my overview takes up way too much space. I would like to see the combat field, not the UI.

Caldari/Amarr should be purple

Minmatar/Gallente should be purple

Its annoying be chased, jammed and fired upon by my own allies constantly through no fault of their own.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Glock 22

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:55:00 +0000

Edited by: Glock 22 on 14/10/2008 15:59:27
I had an alt in faction war and he was doing real good on the kill to death ratio. I left the FW for a couple of reasons. List as follows:

1: Faction war only reconized the plexor's and not the ones doing the pvp. Both the pvp needed the plexor's to keep the systems and the Plexors needed the pvper's for backup. Need to do something for the ones who pvp.

2: In my opinion I think the corps that war dec other corps in faction war just to try to have them drop from fw should be a war target to that faction. I understand its war and there is no rules, but that should go both ways.

3: As far as gate camping goes it really does not bother me that much because the group I was in always went an alt route. And for those who fw war you know Tama=Clone Activation don't go that way.

The Faction War over all was a good learning Exp. and I loved it. Speaking for myself would do it again in a heartbeat if the rewards for pvp was actually there. These were the only two real issues I had with the fw. Other than Podding the enemy (I lost my share of pods though!!!! LOL) Thanks! I will get off the soap box now!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by RedSplat

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:41:00 +0000

+1 cookie to any dev that bothers to read all this, although i am not holding my breath

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ollobrains2

Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:15:00 +0000

time to add planetary interaction to factional warfare me thinks

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by BKnight3

Thu, 2 Oct 2008 14:48:00 +0000

Anti-Griefer concept:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=887751

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Am Li

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:05:00 +0000

Edited by: Am Li on 29/09/2008 05:13:19
I would like to see some rewards from FW.
Something along the lines of LPs for making kills, capping, ____BEING IN A FLEET THAT MAKES KILLS OR CAPS IN YOUR CURRENT SYSTEM____

Nothing sucks more than going out and sitting at that gate for three, four hours and watching others get some and you are 0.1 seconds away from locking and the target is gone.

Originally by: Ratchman
I like quite a few of the suggestons made regarding FW, but I think that improving the gameplay boils down to 3 things:

1. Rewards. There has to be an incentive for people to keep playing FW. I personally prefer the LP store. And if you wanted to give extra incentve, a few new ships with new hulls only available to FW pilots would certainly drawn people in (although they shouldn't be too expensive as we want to encourage people to actually use them in FW).

2. Rankings. If there could be a way of setting up roles for people in the militia, we could then 'elect' a leader who can then assign subordinates and then have a more structured nature. If they could then have the option to kick people out if necessary, the militias would then be able to prevent a fair degree of spying.

3. Move the conflict away from Jumpgates. Practically all of the combat occurs at jumpgates (not counting the in-out docking games, which is just frustrating), and the outcome there is heavily influenced by lag. We really need to find a way to encourage fighting away from gates. Even without the lag, it would be nice to have a few different locales for combat. Perhaps some form of warping a fleet into the next system without having to use the exit gate (kind of like a very limited cynosaural field). The caveat of this could always be the exit point could be random, and that it needs a specialist ship or module to generate.

There are a few other suggestions I would like to make, but I am not sure about their viability. Firstly, it would be nice to have some ingame killboard and/or statistical analysis. Secondly, some environmental effects would be nice, such a ssensor-suppressing nebulae, gravity wells and patches of dangerous radiation that can eat away at armour and hull.

/sign in this I believe.

For example in the Caldari Militia there are about five well known and revered FC's They have clout behind them and are able to actually form large blobs. I like that they have people power but I don't believe they should have technical power to kick people out of militia. This would make militia a corp and ruin its true purpose.

The FCs, I know, have private channels that is "eyes only" conversation about this and that for the militia. Most of us in militia don't have to worry about plotting and such. They have the clout but no thrown and should stay that way. Sure, give them recognition. They've earned it.
DOMINION GAMING, LAID BACK GAMING CLAN
Recruitment Thread
Homepage

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hirana Yoshida

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:37:00 +0000

I will second the request for a response from a CCP representative, are we just blowing smoke?

Some more smoke if that is the case:
The FW missions are great now, not too easy and not too hard, makes for a challenge to do in hostile space so great use of ones time (where is the LP store tweaks to make us drool?)

What does annoy me is that except for a select few missions a person can open one, be chased out only to return hours later to complete it, or a random ally of his can complete it for him.

I would suggest that they be restructured/rewritten to have a collectable item of some sort akin to "The Fox Hunt" so that the defender can close it, preventing the enemy from just coming back later.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Phione

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:54:00 +0000

Can EVE CCP Please respond.....

Alot of us here are looking for a little bit of hope. We would just like to know if EVE is planning to modify Faction Warfare or not ((Soon)). There were alot of statements from EVE about the perks of FW that were in development in the begining. To only be replaced Now with an out of place silence on the issue.

We know its alot of work. We also and don't want to penalize EVE for trying to bring new substance to the game. But we feel it is time that EVE atleast give us a status report, in regards to FW. Please EVE CCP what are your Plans?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by SuckySycky5dolla

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:36:00 +0000

war-deccing corp which participate in FW should be illegal. I'm seeing lamer corps from one faction targeting induvidual smaller corps participating in FW with the demand to leave FW. FW should be immune to that kind of exploitation unless the entire milia becomes at war with that same corporation which initiated the declaration.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ratchman

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:21:00 +0000

I like quite a few of the suggestons made regarding FW, but I think that improving the gameplay boils down to 3 things:

1. Rewards. There has to be an incentive for people to keep playing FW. I personally prefer the LP store. And if you wanted to give extra incentve, a few new ships with new hulls only available to FW pilots would certainly drawn people in (although they shouldn't be too expensive as we want to encourage people to actually use them in FW).

2. Rankings. If there could be a way of setting up roles for people in the militia, we could then 'elect' a leader who can then assign subordinates and then have a more structured nature. If they could then have the option to kick people out if necessary, the militias would then be able to prevent a fair degree of spying.

3. Move the conflict away from Jumpgates. Practically all of the combat occurs at jumpgates (not counting the in-out docking games, which is just frustrating), and the outcome there is heavily influenced by lag. We really need to find a way to encourage fighting away from gates. Even without the lag, it would be nice to have a few different locales for combat. Perhaps some form of warping a fleet into the next system without having to use the exit gate (kind of like a very limited cynosaural field). The caveat of this could always be the exit point could be random, and that it needs a specialist ship or module to generate.

There are a few other suggestions I would like to make, but I am not sure about their viability. Firstly, it would be nice to have some ingame killboard and/or statistical analysis. Secondly, some environmental effects would be nice, such a ssensor-suppressing nebulae, gravity wells and patches of dangerous radiation that can eat away at armour and hull.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hirana Yoshida

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:48:00 +0000

The speed tanking in FW sites is becoming ridiculous, surely it can not have been the intention that a T1 frig can take and maintain aggro in any and all sites.

My suggestions, until CCP figures out what to do longterm:

Add uber-neutralizer NPCs with a huge range to shut down MWDs, and/or

Re-instate the DED-space restriction on MWD functioning inside and on acceleration gates (would also remove the silly nano campers on minors and mediums)*my preferred solution*, and/or

Have NPCs aggro list prioritize whatever is closest to capture point (it is what they are there to protect after all, would go nicely with the uber-neut), the navies should not keep firing at a target that is 150km+ from the capture point unless they are specifically aggressed (like a stealth bomber kiting)

Other things that are ruining my days:

Issue: Neutrals able to scan down and open FW sites. This should not be possible unless in a Militia, it's bad enough that they are used as scouts.
Solution: Remove he ability of unaffiliated pilots to find FW sites on scanner or with probes.

Issue: Streaking spawns in systems (no not that kind of streaking ... such dirty minds). Once every other day I come across a system with up to 10-12, combined with the speed tanking a handful of T1 frigs can run a system so deeply into contested that it either falls or takes weeks to repair.
Solution: Upper limit (set lowish like 3-4) to the number of sites that can spawn in any given system. Will force pilots to move around a lot more giving the opposition more/better chances at disrupting their efforts.

Issue: Cloaking inside FW sites. Very rarely used to trap enemy pilots (which would be OK) but almost always used to avoid aggro from new spawns to allow speedtanker to get it.
Solution: Disable cloaks inside FW sites. Should depend on steps taken to get the speed issue under control.

And the out-of-the-box suggestion:
Allow top (read:max) ranked militia personnel to rearrange the default positions of navy ships inside a FW site. Has to be in range of capture point of course.

Lastly, some sort of reward system would be nice, like a hefty discount in the militia LP store based on rank (surely the Empires want to reward their faithfuls). Would somewhat make up for the lower LP/Hour and perhaps get some more people out running missions and flying those tasty faction ships.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Somealt Ofmine

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:43:00 +0000

Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 10/09/2008 20:44:41
Here are a few thoughts now that I've been involved for a bit:

There definately need to be relatively strong consequences to "flipping" a system. There just isn't motivation enough to do it. We should be seeing way more fights to the death in the plexes than we are. We aren't, because bragging rights aren't really motivation enough.

I know that denying docking rights to the opposing factions seems harsh, but it's the most logical.

The other incentive would be monetary. The capsuleers are supposed to be "Privateers" according to the back story. They should be getting paid a bundle whenever their side advances beyond its previous "high water mark" of systems occupied. Provide a substantial isk payout, and a hanger full of faction goodies from which you can choose stuff as "war booty" based on your rank. That would make rank important too.

Ultimately, there needs to be an "end game" here where you can force the opposing side to "surrender" when you have occupied enough of their space. This should result in an even bigger payout in isk and faction stuff to the winner, and then a reset of occupancy so that the whole thing can start again.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Blake Rathen

Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:15:00 +0000

Allow alliances to join militias or allow 'loyal' alliances access to specific types of agents/missions based on their standing with that empire.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Xavier Zedicus

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:11:00 +0000

An LP reward system would be terrific.

Adapt or have Pie

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Phione

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:32:00 +0000

Edited by: Phione on 23/08/2008 16:34:07
Just echoing many of the idea's posted prior.

Please work on Incentive's. It appears Neutrals are having just as much fun in FW space as Militia. Yet they can attack all sides. Yes we have rank, but currently rank yields no privledge. At least not as much in ISK that can be earned by opportunistic neutrals in FW space.

Please accelerate your development of those incentive's to bring in fresh blood. A simple idea, would be as easy as only allowing FW militia Corps to set up POS's in FW space. Make the minerals in FW space very rare. Hence the fighting in those regions to begin with.

Another one would be to allow FW members to use Smart Bombs, and EM in high sec space. Due to the special security relationships with those member empires. Just some simple idea's to get the incentives going. In order to bring in some frsh bloog.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Aureleus Thaen

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:56:00 +0000

Edited by: Aureleus Thaen on 10/08/2008 20:56:47
Ideas for Tangible Effects :

VPs that go toward acquiring faction ships so that the war is sustainable, can make them not sellable and unable to be reprocessed if necessary for the economy

NPC opposing faction raider spawns that show up and make empire life for a losing faction more difficult

Re-balancing of Mining so that Low sec belts which can be taken over by and controlled by Militias are more profitable than High Sec mining. Maybe tie ability to acquire Faction ships via points to resources controlled

Move high quality mission agents to the capturable FW space, lose space you lose your agent, or have mission rewards scale with war performance

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Spacy Cadette

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 19:57:00 +0000

Senior GM Huginn suggested I make a post here, after going though a petition process to try to determine the following.

Dungeons (or plexes as we the players commonly refer to them) in FW are not spawning as CCP originally described. Although not a major issue, we seek clarification as to how the spawns of the plexes actually occur so we can appropriately move forward.

As was originally described, each constellation will have a certain number of plexes spawn within it. However, we have repeatedly cleared constellations and driven all plexes outside.

What we would like to know is:
Do plexes respawn within the region, within the war theater (i.e. a Caldari plex will always respawn as a Caldari or Gallente plex), or anywhere (a Caldari plex once run can respawn anywhere FW plexes are found in eve, of any particular race)?

Are FW plexes going to respawn as their own racial, or as another racial, or as a random race?

An in game mail or chat would be appreciated with any answers you may be able to provide. Thank you.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sweet Rosella

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:50:00 +0000

I have an idea to make capturing systems for faction war a bit more interesting, basically your faction has to capture a percentage of all planets in a system.

To Capture a planet you erect a structure, a bit like a pos, with out all the fancy hardware or even just soemthing like a gian secure can, if the enemy has all ready got 1 anchored you have to destroy there first.

When enough of the planets have been captured you win the system, now I know some systems have more planets than others, but some have very little so in these system you have to capture them all.

I know its going down the lines of pos war fair and tbh I don't like it and many don't either, but these structures are basically like flags, they don't need to have enormous amounts of shield and go into reinforced or even have guns, there just something to defend or place at a planet.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Anathema Amat

Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:01:00 +0000

I would like to add my support to the idea of rewarding factions who manage to occupy a lot of enemy systems. Perhaps an amount of time after a constellation is completely occupied, a new constellation should open up to FW? I see no game mechanic reason why this cannot include high sec systems too, although clearly the game play would be different. Similarly, if a constellation is uncontested for an amount of time it could be removed from the warzone. Ultimately, if an entire region is occupied, it would seem to make sense to bring in a shift of controlling empire, perhaps accompanied by major news stories and massive NPC fleet movements? Without this level of dynamicism, FW will become boring and I fear there will be a net loss of players.
Thanks,
-Anathema

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Onyx Asablot

Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:02:00 +0000

Should have posted in this thread sorry. Regarding a rank based FW chat channel for high ranked players to communicate.

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=839986

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by DorXtar

Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:58:00 +0000

I wonder if I can start a separate thread to address the issues I want to discuss in regards to FW.

Like others have already mentioned, FW is pointless. It's like putting a sandbox inside of a sandbox, but in this sandbox sandbox, you can't do anything constructive. All you can do is fling sand at your opponent. If you survive, you get to keep the sand that was flung at you for future sand-flinging use.

Faction wars should be Carebear+1, or missioning+1. FW was supposed to make 0.0 players and entities envious of mission-runners and carebears. What good is rank in FW? You don't get an NPC fleet (not a good idea as long as lag is still an issue).

FW should be the stepping stone between missioning and pVp. That would imply isk rewards, or some sort of compensation. Do you know why the Amarr are so weak? Because most amarrian characters/players like to make money, not lose it endlessly. The Amarrian empire is supposed to be one of the richest factions in the game, with all their gold-plated hulls. Yet, they declare war and seem to expect all of their pod-faring citizens to risk their lives and resources for their cause, without the Amarrian state spending one isk.

FW needs to be like PvP missioning. The more rank someone gets in FW, the more NPC reinforcements and resources they can call down. For newer players, they'll have to round up other players to make up for a lack of rank, and they'll be able to gain rank collectively.

I've played other MMOs, and some of the most exciting events were the NPC events that interacted in non-instanced player areas. CCP should have the same thing for FW.

Imagine a huge NPC fleet appearing around a stargate in empire space. Let's pretend the fleet is in hostile territory. How can you control the lag that is sure to come when the word goes out to other players that there is a FW NPC spawn on an empire gate? The stargates can be set to limit jumps of all neutral and enemy players, only allowing friendly ships to reach the FW NPC event. The hostile invasion NPCs will be able to call down real players to aide in the battle, but the real players will need to be "jumped into" the system with NPCs, since the stargates leading up to the FW NPC event will not be allowing enemy reinforcements into the system. This will open up the possibility of NPC super capitals playing a more meaningful role in the conflict.

Imagine getting into an FW NPC Titan or a Mothership, in your personal ship of course, only to be jumped into a hostile system in order to participate in the FW NPC event/spawn?

THAT WOULD BE AWESOME, and a lot less laggy than the current method of FW. The numbers of players involved will be reduced greatly, and the first ones to get "dibs" will be those of higher rank or those with higher faction standings.

This will disrupt the eve-lives of all the other EvE players wishing to travel through these conflict systems, which is realistic.

________________________________
It never hurts to help!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Qduhaf

Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:29:00 +0000

just 7 posts in over 3 weeks.

Maybe its time for CCP to have a 5 hour meeting on FW.

Good concept, decent start and then just dropped

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Khlitouris RegusII

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:46:00 +0000

Originally by: Ditadit
I'm dying to see how factional warfare is going to convince pilots to commit the stupid act of going into low sec and making themselves my targets. Will the rank names do it ? I guess that if you're the type that attaches importance to your avatar's title, you're probably foolish enough to want to get yourself ganked in low sec for little to no material profit.

you dont go into low sec much do you?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by suicide

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:12:00 +0000

Yes, the stations should change and the agents too depending on who owns the system. Then Amarrian high-sec needs to start eroding as the minmatar continue to hold systems. This erosion needs to occur. Yeah and fix the lag in fleet wars.

Especially the BoB lag machine.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arna Padrona

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:22:00 +0000

Well, FW in itself is a nice idea. Instant access to fleet operations, teamplay and pvp. Great. I've flown for the matari militia and had a good time.

I quit the militia though. I quit faction warfare and promised myself to never do it again or ever go near 0.0 alliances. Why? Because the servers can't handle it. Twice have I gotten into "medium size" fleet engagements of about 30 vs 30 people.

1) First time, my client locked up and crashed. I was destroyed and podded and lost quite a lot in the process. No reimbursement given.

2) Second time, my entire fleet freezes up. Everyone is saying "Whoops, we crahsed the node." Part of the fleet never gets through the gate - including the cyno ship that was gonna get us the reinforcements... The enemy still seemed to have some control though, destroying us one after the other, while we can't even target eachother to activate reppers. After locking on the first target, no one really had any control over anything. I'm not even gonna bother to petition it, or send any bug reports.

Faction warfare: Great.

Faction warfare on the current servers: Worthless. I quit and take up mining.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sweet Rosella

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:05:00 +0000

1 problem our corporation is having is that amar are very weak, us being minmatr are finding it harder to find targets as they are droping faster than flys, why it is like this idk, amar ships are very good can deal alot of damage, our corporation has/is concidering swaping to the amar side but due to standings for most pilots this will not be posimble, 1 idea is we can join caldri and fight minmatr and give minmatar a good fight, but for me personaly i wish to stay minmatar, somethign needs to be done there are to many caldri pilots and not enough amar pilots yet caldri and amar should be working together.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by cragz

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:35:00 +0000

My Thoughts About FW -

Its starts off fun getting into huge fleets and getting in on the pvp action and is also a good way for new players to learn the basics of pvp and war. But for long running chars there is no reward at all. You get your kills and a fleet member with va va voom speeds loot all the wrecks and at the end of a good pew pew session you end up with ???? nothing. You then think to yourself, I need to make isk ill go into empire run some complexes blah blah, then jump into a high sec war target blob and " OH Sh*t.. Its a trap " you get ganked in a 0.6 - 0.9 empire system by war targets and where the hell is the Caldari NPC NAvy ? No where to be seen and you loose another 40 - 120m in minutes.

I like being able to fleet up with the ACHMED fleets and kick ass but apart from that it seems there is nothing to gain and everything to loose. Ive only been in FW a week and already its getting tedious.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Khlitouris RegusII

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:00:00 +0000

When are you going to fix the fact that you cant warp to gangmates that are in a plex with you? at present you need to either all fit mwds or sit 60 huggins on the entrance to have any chance of catching the nano gangs, this isnt a nano whine i like nanos but when you have a fast tackler that manages to lock down a nano shipp 200 km from you ina plex and you cant warp to him to help kill the nano ship then somethings wrong and is the main reason i no longer run plexes.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kassasis Dakkstromri

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 03:02:00 +0000

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=821275

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by BiggestT

Tue, 8 Jul 2008 06:21:00 +0000

sorry tried fw and it was fail.

massive blobs, heaps of lag, incredibly poor fleet dicipline even when offenders told time n time again..and vp's uzless atm..

not happy...have since left back to 0.0.

poudly annoying fc's since 2007

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Doctor Byttner

Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:29:00 +0000

Loving FW.

Just wanted to make that statement before I move on.

I feel that the militia's should provide better insurance on ships lost during militia battles.

We all love to fight, but we are now facing daily blob wars in Kamela and Kour, where hundreds of ships are going to die each battle potentially.

FW will eventually decline as this ISK sinkhole soaks up all available disposible income. Please will go back to mission running, battles will get fewer and fewer as it becomes less and less accessible to most people.

I would like to see more T2 and battleship class fights in FW if there would be a way to make the inevitable losses more bearable.

On the medium for achieving this goal I am flexible and open to suggestion. Though the goal itself I believe is required.

If I spend 180 mil on a ship and lose it easily in FW, I want to see not only part of the actual ship's value coming back to me, but also some form of insurance on the fittings for that ship so I get say 160isk back and lose 20mil.

I just purchased a lovely brand new BMW 325 M sports Coupe... If I crash it my insurance won't just pay for the shell of the car... it will pay out for all of the optional extras like the Sat Nav, 19" alloys etc...

I purchased a ship, fitted it, in FW I think that overall purchase should be somehow insured.

agree? disagree?

I just think with this ISK sinkhole we are doing nothing more than promoting ISK sellers who are bound to be rubbing their greasy little mitts at this new release and huge increase in ISK demand!

I would be interested to see how much those ISK prices increase on average in the local spams... that would be a good indicator as to the renewed demand on their "sevices".

Thats my 2 pennies worth.
"Hell hath no fury like 3 women scorned... or mine."

- Some noob

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithrandere

Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:27:00 +0000

Edited by: Mithrandere on 07/07/2008 14:27:39
--sorry pc trouble delete please--

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithrandere

Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:59:00 +0000

Hey Guys allow me to give you my thoughts as a new member to the EVE community (less than 6 months old).

Build Up:
Now this might be because of my noob status, but up untill the week or so leading upto the start of FW I managed to miss a lot of the storyline build up (i suppose i just didnt know where to look or what to look for). However, one thing i would say is that there was a definate sense of 'a storm brewing' and a lot of conversation about the introduction of FW, so even from a 'blind' perspective the build up had impact.

In Game:
Sadly I did not have a happy start to FW. Having left a corp I was CEO of for time related issues I immediarly decided to start a new corp (on a name i really liked, and for admin and future plans). This was as FW was kicking off. Sadly, despite having a high personal faction standing I was not able to join FW as a corp (I was the only one in the corp as i was not recruiting) becuase my corp standing were too low, and for weeks of gaming, no matter what I did, the faction standing didnt move up - litteraly didnt move. So I made the sad decision of binning the corp (which lost the name I was rather intent on keeping) and joined a corp that was already in FW.

Combat Dynamics in FW:
Having played FW for a about 2 weeks now, I feel that the game mechanics of EVE have made FW into something resembling what I imagine to be a large empire/alliance war. It is simply a case of running gate camps and stopping incursions via you own camps - is short the same old zzzzz.

When I joined FW I was hopeing that there would be structured fleets roaming about looking to take and hold objetive or destroy vital enemy structures, constant battling over front line combat zones, and occasional incursions deeper (very deep) into enemy territory that would (or would not be) repelled, while at the same time, cover ops ships would be maruding (as their title suggests they should be doing) deep, deep behind the combat zones.
Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

From what I have seen of it on the Amarr side of things, its like a glorified, disorganised alliance war. Its all gate camps and waiting. There is no momentum in the war, little dynamic and the centers of gravity are basically static.

In short I would list 5 main problems:
1) Dynamics similar to alliance wars without the ability to fight inside and around many different locations.

2) Things appear to have stagnated into static gate camping with occasional, and largely futile incursions into enemey terriroy.

3) Fighting is centrally located in small and limited zones, (generally dependant on gate camps) and does not move from these locations, casuing problem 2 to become worse.

4) Regionally, there are 4 'battlefonts' with 1-3 periphal zones of combat per region. There are 5000+ systems in EVE are there not? Why are only around 10-20 systems (or less) taking the brunt of a war that is 'so big' it is encompasing the known universe?

5) Command and control structures are non existant, as a result combat it patchy, ill organised, futile (if on the offensive) and boring/static on the defensive. It is also too slow to build/find a fleet, and even when u have when u get to them its normally gone/destroyed.

In my opinion, I feel FW has done little to add to the thrill of combat in EVE that could not be done by joining a large alliance in a war. Further, i think that such alliance wars have the ability to span wider areas with more dynamic conflict objectives (ie corp diplomacy/territory wars), engagments and targets, rather than getting pounded as u go through a gate, or getting hunted down by defensive fleets if u break past the camp (as there is nowhere else u can go).

I have quite a lot more I could say on the matter as a PhD student in military science, so if the DEV's want to contact me and talk further then thay can feel free to do so, but i have tried to highlight what are the most important points for me.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Morscerta

Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:02:00 +0000

I personally think that FW is quite a feat and makes EVE a more interesting playground. I do however feel that this feature will die a slow death if rewards or repercussions to the game world are not implemented anytime soon.
I liked the idea of one of my previous capsuleers that an LP store for faction stuff for successful missions would be very interesting, maybe with reduced cost compared to the usuall stores.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Zanpt

Wed, 2 Jul 2008 07:12:00 +0000

Atm I personally have zero interest in the FWs. They seem altogether too contrived and somewhat pointless.

The FWs have, though, had a devastating effect on hi sec corps and alliances. We lost fully 1/3 of our members through corps and individuals leaving to join the FWs. I am not amused.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithfindel

Tue, 1 Jul 2008 04:46:00 +0000

Edited by: Mithfindel on 01/07/2008 04:50:35
More consequences would be nice.

I don't quite think it's fitting that militia would be paid ISK for capturing plexes, but perchance LP would be entirely appropriate - as it's supposed to measure the amount of trust between the capsuleer and the corp.

"So, general, I've been thinking about this... I've been butchering the Caldari in this Imicus, how about I get a replacement Comet?" "The Federal Defense Union stands behind its commanders.* Here you go."

Edit: Almost forgot...

Might be a tad harder to implement, but when a system is occupied, perhaps then it would be possible to drop the occupant's POS there? The problem with this is that normally you need standings of 10x system sec with the sovereign empire. Now it would likely be the same with the occupying empire. Charters? There could be two kinds of charters. One type is what we have now, the charters of the sovereign empires. The other charters could be militia charters, needed for POS in hostile regions. (Eliminates the need to buy opposing empire's charters, should be about similar in price.)

Naturally, these POS are there for production / defense only, and have no use beyond that (no effect on occupancy).

*) Not revealed exactly how many jumps behind they stay.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:50:00 +0000

A few things for the militias:

1. Militia hangars. There are many possible systems, but here's a simple one: nine hangars with minimum rank requirements for each. There is a risk of corp theft (as always), but it would be nice for players to be able to store basic frigates, modules, and ammo where other players can access them.

2. Assign roles based on rank. In the long term, the militias should be able to act more and more like alliances. Roles should be granted based on rank, with the top brass (the top few ranks) able to assign roles themselves. I'd advise against giving powers like firing members or corps to the players, to avoid the hijacking of militias, at least until the next expansion.

3. Seize enemy militia stations. Again, this should wait until the next expansion, but one great consequence of capturing enemy systems would be for stations belonging to militias to be captured after a certain time. Example:

The Roushzar system, an Amarr system containing a 24th Imperial Crusade station, is captured by the Tribal Liberation Force. After a week or so, the station becomes a TLF station. The agents there are moved to other stations, replaced by TLF agents, and maybe, the personal hangars of 24IC pilots may be looted by TLF pilots. It would represent real territorial control, and make staging out of captured systems viable.

4. A public record of FW. Initially, there were posts by players giving status updates on FW. Now, they've dried up. But I'd like for CCP to create a system that records the kills, victory points, and system captures each day, and is available to the public. We could examine trends over time, point out how our side is REALLY winning, or calculate the time until the Minmatar conquer all of the Amarr FW systems (ps - you should have made the territory for FW either proportional to the size of each empire, or equal for all sides).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ban Dwagon

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:23:00 +0000

99% sure this has been said, but we need some sort of mod function for the new militia chat. If this could be first awarded to a few of the emerging leaders of each militia via a vote of sorts, along with the power to make more mods it would certainly help.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by amGreat

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:17:00 +0000

pvp is fun. FW is great for getting some more pvp going.

However, there really needs to be a dynamic system in place.
The rewards must be implemented soon. The reason being there is nothing compeling you to defend your space. Losing space doesn't matter, and neither does winning.

perhaps the factions could pay for plexes. A set amount per plex that would have to be split with as many ships in the plex would encourage smaller gangs as well. Call it a hazard bonus. And then another isk payment that is calculated based on total systems held and divided by total miltia members every week. Calculate it on sunday night to get everyone to make big pushes over the weekend. WE ALL NEED A CARROT, especially the amarr! I could even see FW bounties on enemy FW players based on what ship they are flying, but that would have to be in addition to a reason to do plexes, right now you just do plexes while your waiting for WT.

I would really like to see logistics trains, either NPC or player mission driven, that have true effects on the FW layout. An announcement would go up in miltia chat that the NPC convoy is moving out from x system in high sec in 15 minutes. You'd get there. When the fleet left they would broadcast their destination in local. If they arrive safely then there has to be some reward to the entire miltia, perhaps the destination system has its enemy VP count reduced to 0 - but thats not a reward unless rewards for holding space are implemented.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Captain Counterpart

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:02:00 +0000

>>Transmission Detected
..Downloading

o RPG System should be content based.

Content should mean massive NPC fleets. And other operations. You should rethink spawn policy to real processes. NPC structures should be designed, populations of stations, and need to be take the capture of a station with 50.000-50M inhabitants. They should be get roles on walk in station concept.

RP should be a part of better NPC conversations, and functions. As I read sometimes before you will create programmable bots. Try to focus on roamin nonmilitary aspect of the economy of EVE. The states, bloodlines, organizations should developed more deep than a catalog, and some agents. They should be moving activity in the space, non-combatant vessels, groups with protection. And they can triggered with dice drops.

Nations body should build. I see you designed well the plantes psyhical attributes by the time, now coming the socio economic. Militaries should be have thoulsands of deployed space outpost in a single system like sobaseki. Fuel camps. Factories. Prison Camps. Recruiting fields, and the should be associate with other organizations like the academies too.

Well in my opinion you need to do the following steps

Locate combat logs.
Analyze losts in ships and mods.
Report back to the last years too.
Count the ISK vaule, or convert to minerals.
Estimate the subpatterns (factions > corps > divisions) lost.
You should get out the m3 number/year. So you have a daily basis on moving minerals.

So in that modell, you can share the voulme on locations and plants. You can count crew, and at least a 20% of officers + civilians families, inproductive citizens, elders. This can estimate the population. It genrate other activities, banking, trash management, and this means wrecks should remain space, if this is a permanent universe. After days of great battles freelancer salvagers can collect the loot to serve the mineral hunger.

Individual should change the whole set up. If factions war, squadrons need patrolling, need more NPC investigations, like cargo searching and so. We should figure out how about planetar life at least on habitable planets, whats are the key strategical points of this universe, as well as the communication transmitter systems.

#transmission closed

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nishai

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:31:00 +0000

Concerning ranks: There are people that have already reached rank 10 and some have also quit FW. I do see a problem with "retired" rank 10 general now freely flying in enemy space as if nothing happened. Would you let one stroll down your street during a war simply cos he's "retired"? Point is enemy faction standing decrease was not big enough for some to get below -5 and be flagged as enemy by NPC navies even if they have +10 with their former militia.

Is this the future in couple of months time? People using FW to quickly jack up their standings, get a shiny badge, and be able to put up high sec POSes and jump clones?

And even for those that stay and fight, there will quickly be more generals than soldiers.
Every military structure is like a pyramid. A few people on the top and then proportionately every rank has more members with bulk of the people being ordinary soldiers.

The advancement in rank should therefore be dynamically assigned taking your actions and comparing it to the others.
For example a general rank should get someone who engages in FW on a daily basis, FC gangs( FC ticker like scout ticker in fleet window would do the trick as it is not always the Fleet Commander in fleet window that's the actual FC - with FC ticked off eve client could give a portion of every kill/capture etc of every member to FC) Engages in PVP (greater rewards for pvp needed). Specially FC rewards should be substantial compared to the rest as Leading Rank - a General rank belongs to a person who can lead, inspire and motivate men, basically an excellent FC.

Of course LP store should be established that has items available according to rank. (FW militia boosters-gaining in power according to rank, cheap stuff,mods and ships, cheaper as your rank goes higher and even actual rewards for retaining the rank for a period of time, higher you are nicer the reward) Basically items that enable those higher in ranks to get into combat quicker. ( It would be a sad sight seeing your general grinding missions or ratting simply because he's out of isk)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ditadit

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:42:00 +0000

Originally by: Jeckes
Originally by: BhallSpawn
my thoughts?
waste of company resources.
stop spending money on features and start hiring more network technicians.

stop adding ambulation and make fleet combat something other than a slide show.

my thoughts? 0/10 troll.

Its too early and too harsh to call it "a waste of resources". We'll see what FW grows into as more and more people are involved in it. Though admitedly, a more fluent gameplay would be enjoyable.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jeckes

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:15:00 +0000

Originally by: BhallSpawn
my thoughts?
waste of company resources.
stop spending money on features and start hiring more network technicians.

stop adding ambulation and make fleet combat something other than a slide show.

my thoughts? 0/10 troll.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by BhallSpawn

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:45:00 +0000

my thoughts?
waste of company resources.
stop spending money on features and start hiring more network technicians.

stop adding ambulation and make fleet combat something other than a slide show.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by 314159265

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:44:00 +0000

I like the factional warfare so far, I've got some nice pvp with the matar guys.

What really bothers me is the standing towards my mates, the gallentes. We went into caldari lowsec today to kill some caldari, since Amarr lowsec is kinda empty at the moment.
We engaged like 7 caldari guys. While fighting like 5 Gallente warped in. They showed neutral ofcourse, but we checked that they were our allies. So, we didnt engage them. However, they did engage us and killed several. They were sorry when we told them we were minmatar faction. But, ships destroyed, modules lost.

Why is there no blue standing with the allied faction?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gorgan Sixfinger

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:26:00 +0000

Edited by: Gorgan Sixfinger on 17/06/2008 23:26:44
So Alliances can't join. Over time this limitation will cease to be a problem, but right now we, as a community, have a problem.
There are a few alliances for each faction that have kept the faction vs. faction aspect alive for as long as the game has existed.

Asuming you think that keeping them out (for now) is a problem, consider this:

Temporary quick fix to the "alliances can't join". Simply offer all who wish to apply for being wardec'd. Then have CSM consider the applicants, and make a recomendation.
Make it a limited time offer, and give the few who deserve it a break.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rhys Onasi

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:53:00 +0000

Originally by: Lenus Daragio
Factional warfare...

Hey let's fight for Caldari!!!! OHCRAP, now I can't go to Jita...

Wait... why can't you go to Jita? ROFL

I think you messed up that troll...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Lenus Daragio

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:44:00 +0000

Factional warfare...

Hey let's fight for Caldari!!!! OHCRAP, now I can't go to Jita...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Baeryn

Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:07:00 +0000

Just listening to Warp Drive Active, and they mentioned that CCP is looking for feedback on how to alliances could be made to work with Factional Warfare.

How about opening up alliances to massive NPC counterstrikes, including (or specifically) out into 0.0 space? If a player-owned alliance gets sufficient negative standing, the NPC faction should launch large battlefleets to actively aggress them.

What says you?
Role Playing Games by RolePlayGateway

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ditadit

Mon, 9 Jun 2008 14:55:00 +0000

I'm dying to see how factional warfare is going to convince pilots to commit the stupid act of going into low sec and making themselves my targets. Will the rank names do it ? I guess that if you're the type that attaches importance to your avatar's title, you're probably foolish enough to want to get yourself ganked in low sec for little to no material profit.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sarin Adler

Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:03:00 +0000

CCP says PvP is the reward, for now at least. I agree with you, as it's now, FW is pointless. Too bad because the testing on SiSi is fun and the concept is good and not even very wrongly implemented (could be better off course).

Hopefully rewards & consequences of FW will come later, but we will see. This should not end like lvl5 missions, it would be a shame (aparentlly this is gonna change too).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ditadit

Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:57:00 +0000

Originally by: DJTheBaron
If I understand Correctly, Enter System X, Scan Every Planet For Capture Points, Capture Said Points, Siege Bunker, Wait Until Downtime, Its Your System, Maintan This For X Duration, Gain Sov.

Which is fine, king of the hill...

I don't understand what is the point of controling a system. Once you own the command bunker then what ? You get sov I heard what does that mean? In 0.0 ultimatly people fight for resources. Either to secure their own team's space or to impede in the enemies' efforts to aquire resources. You get those nutheads who fight for the pyrotechnics but they're a minority. How does controlling the command bunker grant you resources or decreases the enemies'. To make a long story short, what's in it for ME if I help my faction control a system.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Justen Kase

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 22:31:00 +0000

Yet another attempt to coerce everyone to PvP. *sigh* I can't see any benefit from the massive development hours devoted to this when the jukebox still doesn't have an "off" button :)

In my opinion, CCP has done a lot more harm than good to Eve with this expansion.

**So what's in the next expansion? Anything good or just more PvP-centric stuff?

"When two ships meet, the one that fires back...he's the anti-pirate"

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ollobrains

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:23:00 +0000

remembering that CCP is trying to attract more players, not all low sec regions are included either. This will create more targets, more industry more players in low sec speficially everyones always complaining about low sec being useless well this adds an intermediate step for newer players and something slightly different for vets and their alts.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by JafoPBCFR

Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:25:00 +0000

My thoughts are its nothing more then another CAPTURE THE FLAG in Another mmo.

If ya want a war make it one. Industry. logistics. Combat.

Industrial corps join milita. they get missions to mine,move cargo. Think merchant marine in war. google it.

have convoys. NPC if ya like with some sort of purpose. Have the Combat protect the convoy routes.

If the indutry and logistics are cut or slowed the faction it envolves gets higher LP costs.

but the capture the flag just isnt going to hold my attention for a extended time. Mainly due to im used to it in other same run of the mill MMO.

Which is not why i chose to play EVE.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithfindel

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:48:00 +0000

Originally by: DJTheBaron
If I understand Correctly, Enter System X, Scan Every Planet For Capture Points, Capture Said Points, Siege Bunker, Wait Until Downtime, Its Your System, Maintan This For X Duration, Gain Sov.

Which is fine, king of the hill, except, there is currently a limited on complexes per constelation, so if gorup a are ganking system x, b gank system y, by the time it comes to system Z for team c, they cant spawn the capture points as the conetelation is full, this could also lead to factions covertly spawning their own plexes on an alt, to block the constelation.

Is This Problem Only In My Head?

I assume that the complexes de-spawn after a certain set amount of time. Also, at least on the first version of factional warfare, only occupancy changes - sov stays as it used to be. For example, even if the Gallente steamroll thru the Black Rise, the region still stays as Caldari sovereign, even when it's occupied by the Gallente.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by DJTheBaron

Sat, 31 May 2008 09:12:00 +0000

If I understand Correctly, Enter System X, Scan Every Planet For Capture Points, Capture Said Points, Siege Bunker, Wait Until Downtime, Its Your System, Maintan This For X Duration, Gain Sov.

Which is fine, king of the hill, except, there is currently a limited on complexes per constelation, so if gorup a are ganking system x, b gank system y, by the time it comes to system Z for team c, they cant spawn the capture points as the conetelation is full, this could also lead to factions covertly spawning their own plexes on an alt, to block the constelation.

Is This Problem Only In My Head?

"The Views & Opinions Expressed In This Post Represent Your Own, So Dont Bother Arguing"
DJTheBaron: Diplomacy 4TW

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Guns nButter

Thu, 29 May 2008 08:08:00 +0000

make an in-game channel that posts updates on occupancy (ie such and such a system's bunker is x VPs away from being vulnerable, or such and such a system has x hostiles in it) said channel could (possibly) have AI commands (ie a player says "/VPstatus Obe, or /hostilecount Hakonen) and the channel will whisper that information to the player, or mail it to them.
make an in-game browser app that will let you browse information such as system VPs (current map color-code does not specify the number of VPs in a system, or how many it needs to become vulnerable)
or stuff like that.

i've contemplated actually getting to and from a mission area, and i think when you accept a mission and go into details, it should tell you the average hostile count on your way to the mission zone, and the hostile count in the system that your mission is in.

gang self-invite (militia). nuff said.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TheNaiL

Wed, 28 May 2008 13:53:00 +0000

crappy expansion... IMHO in this form it is planned it will suck to the most empire players except those d**kheads who love to ransom missionrunners... it only will raise the numbers of empire-rattin players...

whats up to those people who are mostly solo playing.... let them team up with people they dont know, they dont trust? getting a low-sec pirate into the team means he dont need to search for you... he directly can warp to you... pretty cool idea :)

there are many more things that will let me think of boycotting this expansion...
as long as there are different aspects of the war, there must be made a difference between those players... take out the missions or make the warfare systems safe as long as you are not willing to pvp/mission flag the different players...

if i am in the mood to participate in pvping, i will jumpclone out of my plus-5-impd char, take my little recon out of hangar , fitting some cool electronic stuff on it and undock for having some fun... :) but only if there will be different status-flaggings :P
...if youll find me anywhere in 0.0 space... gimme some secs to runaway like a headless chicken... :P

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ollobrains

Wed, 28 May 2008 12:05:00 +0000

its basicaly a very limited low sec pvp cross with pve small gang small ship pvp. ITsreally just a step up in pvp terms. Doable probably with moderate trained alts. Its something different and will provide a alternative to simple mission grinding and keep more players ingame. What might open it up however is when the 0.0 pirate factions come into play and the ability of the empire dwellers to push 0.0 regions and for 0.0 regions to push into empire low sec space.

Given the map is 3d if CCP are going to drag the chain on planetary interaction and jove - then expand upwards the low sec systems of the fw. Perhaps to encompass all areas of low sec ( with more intraregional links that bypass empire) aridia and khandid ( unless ammatar and khandid are getting their own indepdant fw)

Black rise is a good gain. From limited testing everyone is using caps on SISI which is adding and subtracting from the testing process. Perhaps CCP can disable all cap ship sales at various points to test smaller gang setups

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Xelous

Wed, 28 May 2008 11:05:00 +0000

My zoink of an idea.

Request: Someone define a zoink for me, I'm in the mood for a zoink, I zoinked that one, I'm zoinking the lettuce... ideas on a post card to Xelous.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nathvas

Wed, 28 May 2008 06:50:00 +0000

Edited by: Nathvas on 28/05/2008 06:52:25
Orgionally I was ethusitatic but the more I learned about it. The more disappointed I got. I was hoping that I could push the gallente border further into caldari and Ammarr space but seems like that isn't the case. And I aggree with other people. This won't have the intened affect that CCP wanted. All what will happen is, the low sec pirates will have plenty of cannon fodder to shoot with all the newer players joining the factional warfare and being lead to their deaths.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Keeves

Sun, 25 May 2008 06:22:00 +0000

Only thing that bothers me is the time it takes to take a system, mainly because complex's are scattered randomly over a number of systems and you cant just focus on one system to get the complex's and get it done.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dex Nederland

Sun, 25 May 2008 00:07:00 +0000

Originally by: Nareg Maxence
Playing a few hours on the test server now.

FW=More capital ships online ftl... :(

It is on the test server because a Cap ship cost all of 100 isk! Committing Captial ships to take systems will be a dangerous prospect on TQ, where they cost billions. Also a Cap ship fleet is only useful in the final stages of taking a system.

Founder Heiian Society

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nareg Maxence

Sat, 24 May 2008 21:30:00 +0000

Playing a few hours on the test server now.

FW=More capital ships online ftl... :(

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Denton Farrow

Sat, 24 May 2008 11:11:00 +0000

Not read the whole thread so sorry if this has been said before.

What I would like to see is a frontline, this can easily be done by only allowing systems to be contested if they border your already controlled space.
This will make it much easier for people to fight and defend systems (more people in less systems) and will give a feeling of progress in the war as the frontline moves forward and backwards.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Astral Water

Fri, 23 May 2008 05:07:00 +0000

This is a repeat, I posted as a new topic. Newbie.

It would be super cool to have some pirate factions as well. Eventually it would be cool to have pirate flavor to the whole experience.

Being able to pirate in X space would be fun. Having smart pirates would be cool. Get free ships and being able to join a pirate faction proper at lvl 10 and patrol blood raider space would be really umm cool ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Karn Mithralia

Thu, 22 May 2008 23:47:00 +0000

Will this get read down here on page 14?

What I would like to see come from faction warfare is the ability for alliances to declare war on a faction and their militia without having to sign up for the oppositition.

Even should alliances be allowed to join militias some point down the track I wouldnt take U'K down that path.

Quite simply I agree with the dev blog on alliances and FW - we are a soveriegn entity with our own agenda and political stance and IC I cannot see Karn handing over his command to the militia. We would of course be happy flying beside the Matari militias against our common foes.

So to summarise my wish list:

- ability for alliances to go to war against any faction/militia of their choosinng without joining the opposition

- mechanics that facilitate the ability to fly alongside aligned militias shoudl alliances choose
-----------------------------------------

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Frozen Light

Thu, 22 May 2008 07:01:00 +0000

JC with +4 implants is cheap. And loosing a pod in lowsec is almost impossible, maybe to a smartbombing ship.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nomen Clay

Thu, 22 May 2008 04:19:00 +0000

Edited by: Nomen Clay on 22/05/2008 04:22:25
self admitted carebear here, and all in all it isnt the loss of a ship that concerns me. if i know im going out to pvp then i simply grab something affordable, insure it, and toss abunch of tech 1 unnamed junk on it. if i win, woo! if i loose, well it wasn't that much of a loss.

my hesitation would come from my implants. i cant insure them like i can my ship. if i get podded, they are gone. no recovery, no wreckage to loot in the hopes of salvaging some of them, their just gone. pure lost cash, 100% profit loss heh.

sure, jump clones are possible, but udunno. im always skill training, so i always want to have at the very least attribute implants in there to speed up my training.

and nope, not a rant here either. i fully plan on participating in fw when it comes out, finally get my feet wet so to speak. ill have several sets of affordable versions of my extremely expensive 6-piece crystal set to keep my skill training at an affordable and reasonable learning rate. i just hopefully fine tuned the above posters observations regarding the carebear community. at least from my perspective :)

my implants are EXTREMELY expensive :)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Parduhn

Thu, 22 May 2008 02:31:00 +0000

I suspect that the vast majority of posters here are already pretty clued-up pvpers who see fw as a way to kill the clueless carebears.

Looking at the map you see the majority of players (90% someone mentioned) concentrated into high-sec - WHY? because they don't want to loose their hard earned mission ships to the rabid gank squads eager to pod u at the first chance. There are no fair fights.

The BIG question is how do you introduce pvp to the carebears without confirming their suspicions? I haven't a clue, but can see this as a total waste of time unless unless an answer is found.

Forget all the technical hair-splitting details - persuading the carebear majority to participate against their better judgement is the real problem with this.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Major Death

Wed, 21 May 2008 09:40:00 +0000

In think the main source of existing RP players annoyance is not that they cannot take part in FW directly, but more that they will be left out of the EVE storyline. If CCP make the developing (RP) storyline of the EVE universe a blend of FW events and non-FW events, then I think the exclusion of the RP Alliances and Minor Faction RP Corps will not be such a big thing.

On allow people to War Dec the faction militias, this is ok, but those doing so should have the same penalties as if they were fighting for the opposing faction, i.e. attacked by the militias factions navies. This would make sense for both RP and gameplay reasons.

Allow people to get a standing reset to a faction. Setup a set of agents for each faction that offers the option to reset standings to that faction to 0. However there should be a corresponding hit to the players standings with all enemy factions of the resetting faction. This would prevent abuse. A time based lockout would also help, similar to the counter for jump cloning, e.g. one standing reset every 180 days.

(These are my personal views, not those of my corp or alliance)

My original sig was 'Enjoy lag free play in a dynamic space MMORPG'. It was removed for lack of EVE content! ;)
CCP say 'Shut up about bugs and eat your eye candy!'

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nomen Clay

Tue, 20 May 2008 16:47:00 +0000

another thought, how does fw fit in with corp history anyways? lets say i join and after afew weeks i notice my funding lacking due to ship losses, ammunition usage, etc. i leave fw and go run standard missions for afew weeks to rebuild my resources and once thats accomplished, i return to fw. after a year of this my corp employment history will potentially be 20 pages long heh.

perhaps a new portion to employment history which displays 'total time in fw', 'current time in fw', etc and make it so that when leaving fw it dosent add additional listings for the default npc corp that you fall back into. hell, ive never liked cluttered employment histories anyways, alot of 0.0 alliances look pretty hard into that section of a character app.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nomen Clay

Tue, 20 May 2008 16:32:00 +0000

16 pages... alot to try and read when I'm getting ready for work heh. To much infact so I'll just post my idea under the assumption that it hasn't been suggested yet and well, if it has... so be it.

Temporary Duty (tdy). Those of us in the military or previously enlisted know this term quite well. Why not apply it to alliances/corporations for use with factional warfare. An alliance decides a number of its members want to participate in factional warfare in the name of their loyal to empire of choice. Said empire is willing to take on individuals but not the alliance. Said alliance pays a top fee per head for each member who goes tdy to the choosen faction militia. The fee is determined by the length of the tdy. Once paid, the following mornings maintenance cycle sees the tdy alliance members no longer members of their alliance, they are now part of the militia for the duration of their contract.

I suppose this would be a rp version of alt corps, but really... who wants alt corps? Make it so that this transfer to factional warfare does not show as a corp change on the employment history. As far as anyone who looks at said tdy player, they'll see the players current alliance/corp, nothing more. Could even show a tag somewhere on their portrait to suggest that they are tdy.

If ccp is worried about titans showing up in contested low sec space, limit the ships a tdy member can fly to say... sub capital class. Yes, corporations who join fw could potentially use capital ships in this combat but hey, that'd be their reward for fully enlisting instead of going tdy.

Alliances / corporations would have the ability to pull the member prematurely out of tdy with a sizable fee for doing so should the need arise (another alliance attacks owned space, etc). When the member is tdy, as previously stated they are still shown as a member of their corp/alliance, they appear on the corp roster as normal, maybe with a tdy icon next to their name or somesuch.

Anyways, just rambling. Take or ignore this idea as a brilliant or stupid concept heh, see you all in fw :)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by David Flavius

Mon, 19 May 2008 20:34:00 +0000

Originally by: ZERG RUSHKEKE
I have been wondering about Industrialists & the war. Seeing as more ammunition, turrets and modules will be used as the war goes on, will we be able to make a substantial profit off of them? What about hauling loads of ammunition to the frontlines, major combat zones, and hot spots to sale to a certain corp/militia. Wouldn't the demand for certain minerals go up beacuse of the need of more ships and equipment?

I can understand that some people like flying around and blowing each other up but we are the backbone of EVE....or at least I think we are. I don't want to have to worry about some moron in a battlecruiser warping in on me while I am mining and destroying me. Also a quick question. I am a Gallente pilot who flies a Badger MKII (Beacuse its sexy). The station where I am at is in Gallente space but is owned by the Caldari and has Caldari sentry guns outside. When the war starts will I be destroyed by them? What if I am hauling and my fellow Gallente see me in a Badger and think its a Caldari? Or is that not a problem?

i would think they have friend foe systems for your ship... and i say... Caldari station in gallente space? TAKE IT OVER (the Gallenete that is)like they would let the enemy keep a station in their system

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ZERG RUSHKEKE

Mon, 19 May 2008 13:57:00 +0000

I have been wondering about Industrialists & the war. Seeing as more ammunition, turrets and modules will be used as the war goes on, will we be able to make a substantial profit off of them? What about hauling loads of ammunition to the frontlines, major combat zones, and hot spots to sale to a certain corp/militia. Wouldn't the demand for certain minerals go up beacuse of the need of more ships and equipment?

I can understand that some people like flying around and blowing each other up but we are the backbone of EVE....or at least I think we are. I don't want to have to worry about some moron in a battlecruiser warping in on me while I am mining and destroying me. Also a quick question. I am a Gallente pilot who flies a Badger MKII (Beacuse its sexy). The station where I am at is in Gallente space but is owned by the Caldari and has Caldari sentry guns outside. When the war starts will I be destroyed by them? What if I am hauling and my fellow Gallente see me in a Badger and think its a Caldari? Or is that not a problem?
----------------

"O Maker, help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sun, 18 May 2008 23:49:00 +0000

So are we going to see a white paper or some documentation on this thing before release?
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dex Nederland

Sun, 18 May 2008 14:29:00 +0000

Edited by: Dex Nederland on 18/05/2008 14:30:58

Originally by: Battlestar Galactica
stop being stupid and allow RP alliances to take part. If CCP are using this as a noob PvP training ground then this is fricking pointless.

People like Usha'k and CVA are two groups that are being kicked out and i would feel very annoyed for them, there good enough for the emperor to give them a imperial apoc full of navy mods but not good enough to fight in the militia as a alliance? Me see's a issue here.

Please refer to post 138 of this thread from September of 2007 where Greyscale states that at getting alliances into FW will be difficult.

Originally by: "CCP Greyscale"
On entire alliances signing up: this is a very sticky point and one we're still working at. In theory yes, we'd love for alliances to be able to sign up. In practice, EVE has two containers - the corp, which holds players, and the alliance, which holds corps. We don't have a container for alliances as of yet, which makes alliance-level signups difficult to say the least.

Founder Heiian Society

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Battlestar Galactica

Sat, 17 May 2008 22:12:00 +0000

stop being stupid and allow RP alliances to take part. If CCP are using this as a noob PvP training ground then this is fricking pointless.

People like Usha'k and CVA are two groups that are being kicked out and i would feel very annoyed for them, there good enough for the emperor to give them a imperial apoc full of navy mods but not good enough to fight in the militia as a alliance? Me see's a issue here.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TTwainn

Sat, 17 May 2008 02:42:00 +0000

My concerns:

1) A lot of the "carebears" talk about losing their head full of implants as a major barrier to PvP, so any sort of gateway between Empire mission running and 0.0 pvp will probably need to strongly discourage podding. I have heard that the mechanics of the perpetual warfare will allow podding without consequences, if this is true - then FW will likely fail at this primary goal.

2) Low-Sec, if the contested sites are basically in low-sec - Then chances are very good that all this does is tell pirates which gates to camp. It is the Pirate gatecamps which keep a lot of high-sec players from entering low-sec in anything other than a stabbed frig. It makes complete sense that the low-sec systems would be the ones where the fighting would take place, but if combatants aren't able to get to the site because the gate into the system is camped - then the only ones which will participate are those who already pvp.

3) Deadspaces. I was so hoping they would not be deadspaces - so that you could create gangs, use cov ops for warp ins, and try to tactically attack the enemy within the contested area -- but I suppose that the coding to allow this level of freedom without allowing cap ships, might be very difficult. The biggest problem with this is that if everyone warps in to 0 at the same spot, then whichever side is able to must a 50man gang and get in there first, wins - as the other side will have to deal with the grid load issues associated with warping into a camp. At the very least you should allow pilots to warp in at range from the beacon, if possible.

4) Roleplaying Alliances - Should be able to team up with a faction, unless they already claim SOV somewhere.
... Signature ...

In a previous life, I was a fisherman. I am looking to reclaim the simple life of a fisherman.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sq7

Thu, 15 May 2008 22:09:00 +0000

mkay

pretty much everything seems pretty well thought out. My only real concern was the alliance involvement. So no problem.

If you want ideas:

-You should get rank and medals.
-Rank and medals are not related.
-Medals you get for whatever awesome reason.
-For rank you have to fill a kill/objective quota. Say... monthly. With points awarded for different class ships.
-You consistently fill your quota you get promoted.
-Consistently fail and you are demoted.
-Some kind of leave card system you can play if you felt you missed your quota because you did not have enough playing time or something just to be fair and nice (it is a game)
-rank could determine some kind of salary or other perk. Loyalty points with war npc corps maybe... (please... faction fleet issue ship LP shop options maybe.. rediculously expensive and with the right to a personal signature decal on the hull... please-please-please-please)
-Loyalty points would be a great salary currency come to think of it.

-Your faction standing should never be penalised to the point where an enemy faction will want nothing to do with you. That would
just be boring. A good enemy can be a great ally if you can persuade him to join your ranks.
-You should be allowed to defect for an incentive based on your medals and your rank(your honor...:) Once off would probably be best.
-Of course your honor is out the door if you defect and you are stripped of you medals and rank. The Gallente spit on Caldari medals anyway. You have to earn respect in any case. So start over on the rank and medals.
-So when you defect it can be very profitably once off, but of course no serious corp member will lightly defect if it means he's going to have to fight against his own corp. So defecting will be more due to good honest arguments than greed. I mean you lose your salary! eek! Of course I personally value my corp.
-All the rest can just be low life mercenaries with small incentives based on kill history.

In the end war should be filled with intrigue! (Matarr commander chief boss fellow) Fellow Matarr citizens the Amarr paid PlayerX (admiral) a bijillion isk to defect to them from the us after he lost faith in the strategies decided upon by the matari council of war and he had an argument about it with his fellow corp members. Aaah! Look at his kill history. We are doomed! Growl... 10 million isk to the first soldier who pods him! And a million isk for each pod kill thereafter. Make his career in the Amarr navy hell! Pod him till he defects right back!! (spittle) (2 weeks and 50 pod kills later) Woops! There he goes to the Gallente. My God! Did anybody know he can fly Gallentean Battleships? (whisper from an advisor) Cough-cough! Yes sir. Remember he used to pilot a vindicator while he was still with us. (commander) Erm... Yes well... Business as usual everybody. Are you laughing soldier?!! Your next five assignments will be asteroid belt gaurd duty. (Maniacal grin) Everybody... Dismissed!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sunbird Huy

Thu, 15 May 2008 12:14:00 +0000

ok, since I was too late to follow the forum all the way, and 16 pages is too much to read, I got 3 questions:

1.Are there gonna be organised fleet engagements of NPC, that we will be able to join in?

2.Are we gonna be able to join only one side, i.e. Caldari, and be forced to stick with them, or we will be able to swap sides?

3.Are Caldari gonna have the chance of Caldari Prime liberation, Minmatars to rescue slaves, Amarr to continue the Reclaiming and Gallente...well whatever the heck they were up to, wipe out Caldari state?...
Great Idea. And sort the lagg as well! heheh

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nocturnal Hunter

Thu, 15 May 2008 01:50:00 +0000

Originally by: Sheha
Factional warfare has to have a market effect.

I've said it before, but allowing enemies and friends alike to dock and buy from the market at the same prices will make a mockery of the whole concept of warfare, let alone faction warfare.

In war, you deny your enemy the ability to supply himself cheaply (or at all, if possible).

Failing to constrain hostile purchases will just be a dead giveaway that the Faction War is not supposed to be resolved, but is just an artificial high for combat hungry gamers.

Make it realistic by making the logistics realistic as well please.

Make it so that high Amarr standings mean it is nearly impossible to buy or sell for a good price in enemy regions, etc etc...
i.e; You should need a degree of espionage skills to access enemy markets.

completely agree, and this would lower lag in places like jita :)
and participate should not be a option, should be a obligation

ps: i want to take caldari prime from gallente hands

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by procurement specialist

Wed, 14 May 2008 17:45:00 +0000

why not allow them to dock but charge much higher for station services or deny them at bad enough levels. simply exclude market buy ability (pretend it is out of reach) or up teh tax to 10 , 20, 50%.

flying a faction ship should give a bonus for nothing better than the holoreel footage back to the folks at home. Flying an opposing faction could be fun too though. No bonuses but get a note about being a reformed whatever you are. (pirate faction ships would be very bad on the holoreels though)

opening cynos in high sec for any reason is a bad idea. not because i don't want them there but because i would hate to see a cap ship die by concord for accidently hitting a neutral with an aoe or mistarget. building an empire carrier or dread in a gate system should still be allowed to use it. if you built it there you certainly knew the risks.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sheha

Tue, 13 May 2008 08:27:00 +0000

Factional warfare has to have a market effect.

I've said it before, but allowing enemies and friends alike to dock and buy from the market at the same prices will make a mockery of the whole concept of warfare, let alone faction warfare.

In war, you deny your enemy the ability to supply himself cheaply (or at all, if possible).

Failing to constrain hostile purchases will just be a dead giveaway that the Faction War is not supposed to be resolved, but is just an artificial high for combat hungry gamers.

Make it realistic by making the logistics realistic as well please.

Make it so that high Amarr standings mean it is nearly impossible to buy or sell for a good price in enemy regions, etc etc...
i.e; You should need a degree of espionage skills to access enemy markets.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Heroldyn

Sun, 11 May 2008 22:56:00 +0000

i assume factional warfare will be one of thoose "cool" features that i'll not be looking into, unless forced to.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Vindicore

Sun, 11 May 2008 09:08:00 +0000

Edited by: Vindicore on 11/05/2008 09:13:17
Basically I want the faction war to allow all players to engage in PvP quickly and easily if they wish.

To do this players should be able to:

1. Easily see which is freindly, nuetral and enemy territory.
2. Be able to judge where they can attack successfully (by gathering intel).
3. Be able to make a difference (ie, capturing territory, cutting supply lines, etc).

Faction alligned players should be freely atackable by enemy factions (except in high sec space.

Players that quit a faction should very slowly lose faction standing(it could take months to lose it all), both positive and negative until it evens out.

I also want nuetral characters to gain some faction standing when they supply a faction with goods, so to stay nuetral in the war they have to supply all the empires more or less equally. Perhaps nuetral suppliers would get less money that faction alligned suppliers, who get a bonus for being exclusive to that faction. However, the alligned supplier is going to be hit by enemy factions.

Systems must be capturable, and that is going to rely on capturing stations.

Simply do not allow faction ships to dock in their enemies stations, but it needs to be obvious when they are in an enemy system (shot at!). No problems with caldari stations in mimitar space, just have them capturable and its sorted.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Soporo

Sat, 10 May 2008 23:32:00 +0000

I hope they consider the idea of NPC Faction Navies actually spawning in an opposing/adjacent Factions systems on occasion.

Naturally a Local wide SYSTEM ALERT! would tell (FW) folks in system about the invasion.

X-UP M*******ERS, THE DIRTY MIMS HAVE COME FOR A BEATING!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Boon McBwen

Fri, 9 May 2008 16:54:00 +0000

Ive been thinking about this whole docking in hostile stations.
In RL, if a jet fighter for instance, lands in hostile territory, the pilots would be taken as a POW and his ship captured. Today, even when a plane lands in neutral territory it is interred along with the pilot. Like the Iraqi air force during desert shield/storm. Imo, you should be denied access to enemy stations altogether.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ditadit

Thu, 8 May 2008 11:33:00 +0000

How about implementing a "factional security status" system.
The objective of this would be feature is to limit the traveling restrictions in high sec dued to security status.

ATM When you kill someone in low sec, your security status goes down and you suffer traveling restrictions universe wide.

In the case of a factional security status:

you kill someone in low sec, your security status goes down and you suffer traveling restrictions as before.

BUT....

If the person you kill is part of the opposing factiong, then your factional security status doesn't suffer.
And "factional security status" determins which systems you can access within your own factions areas.

On the other hand, if you attack someone from your own faction in low sec, your factional security status ges down.

Basically if you're Gallente and you kill loads of Caldari pilots in low sec, you'll suffer traveling restrictions in Minmatar (maybe), Caldari, Amarr space; but not in Gallente space.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gombar

Wed, 7 May 2008 12:38:00 +0000

Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: usemypic
Having read the mmorpg.com interviewI felt as though
So stop. But do yourself a favor and TRY before? Being a preconceptious child is not very smart.

Well, will be hard to bring the players back, after they tried it, and didn't like it. Face it, most of the players stay in high sector, because they feel that it is no fun, to be podded by people, playing the game a little longer. Though I see that old players would like to see more victims, gangs would like to have more solo players to exploid them, the majority of the players doesn't seem to be thrilled by this idea.

So yes, I fear too, that fraction wars is forcing first all people into pvp and then out of the game.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Katana Seiko

Wed, 7 May 2008 07:05:00 +0000

Edited by: Katana Seiko on 07/05/2008 07:11:18
Can we please have an arena type of PvP game where you can go and sign up to "defend your races' territory"? Become "defenders"?

More thoughts about that arena:
It should be highsec where you can enlist to become a "defender". Enlisting gives you a timer of 10 hours where you can freely attack "defenders" that enlisted for the other side. Being podded removes that timer. For that time, killing a player that signed up for the opposing faction doesn't result in a sec standing drop, but it renews your timer.
Every enlisted "defender" has a bounty for other "defenders" to catch, but not for the common players. Every enemy defender you pod raises your "Defender Bounty" by 50%.

Well, where should you be able to enlist? I guess, an event agent at the Navy HQs should solve that. (If you're a -10 pirate you'll have to do something to get this form of PvP fun). Enlisting costs 100k ISK (your initial "bounty"). With that increase of 50% per ship kill that sounds little, but you just have to calculate a little. You reach one million after just 7 enemy "defenders", one billion after 23 of them. Okay, maybe it should be capped somewhere - maybe after 10 ships for a cruiser and after 20 for a battleship (or bigger)...

Every 20 "defenders" you shot down you should get a reward, maybe something like a 0.05 increase of faction standing, and your agent gives you an "important target" (a random enemy "defender"'s name) that you can either hunt and shoot down or ignore (without any consequences)...

All in all, Pods should be left out of the equation, and the equipment of a "defender" shouldn't drop if he was shot down by an other "defender". As the enemies get harder, the bounty rises... Should be well worth the risk, don't you think?

And before someone comes up with that question: Yes, of cause you'll get killmails! Including those bounty numbers...
"Victim A in a Caracal with fitting [whatever] shot down, all fitting and cargo gone - but he was worth over 10 million in bounty"
"Victim B in a Raven with fitting [whatever] shot down, all fitting and cargo gone - but he was worth over 332 million in bounty."
How does a killmail like that sound?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Travis Shireen

Tue, 6 May 2008 22:46:00 +0000

Edited by: Travis Shireen on 06/05/2008 22:46:39
*points to above topic*

Actually I think I figured out way so that everyone can contribute to the war effort and adresses MANY of the issues people have and how they work. Take a look, tell me what you think. *points to link three messages up*

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kagura Nikon

Tue, 6 May 2008 22:34:00 +0000

Originally by: sgt carlini
Yeah but, as a miner, my skills are industrial. I don't want to have to worry about the fact that my enemy is blowing up around my belt. If I wanted that I could go to 0.0 and get more isk! Its al very well introducing all this new content for the combatters among us but what effect will this have on the guys who patiently set a mining op in hi-sec only to get blown up by a galleante battleship?

This might be very good (even for industrials) but I think that something should be included for the industrials. Contribute to the war effort kinda thing?

Of course there will be! You willbe able to mine like you do and then give everythgin for free for your faction, in an act of patriotism and self sacrifice.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by sgt carlini

Tue, 6 May 2008 18:07:00 +0000

Yeah but, as a miner, my skills are industrial. I don't want to have to worry about the fact that my enemy is blowing up around my belt. If I wanted that I could go to 0.0 and get more isk! Its al very well introducing all this new content for the combatters among us but what effect will this have on the guys who patiently set a mining op in hi-sec only to get blown up by a galleante battleship?

This might be very good (even for industrials) but I think that something should be included for the industrials. Contribute to the war effort kinda thing?
When the war comes, caldari are going to kick some galleante and minmatar rear!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Seishi Maru

Tue, 6 May 2008 12:13:00 +0000

Originally by: usemypic
Having read the mmorpg.com interviewI felt as though the games developers were trying to force everybody into pvp.
As far as I'm concerned pvp is not all that fun. I am looking forward to the ambulation release so that I can walk around a station with stunning graphics, grab a drink, sit, talk.. walk my pet?
Anyway comments like:
"The goal with this expansion, Woodward tells us, is to try to bridge the gap between players who play in safe space, generally running missions and the like and the players who are actively engaging in the games PvP."
and
"Youre going to die a lot because thats what PvP is about. Still, once you get into the mindset of Im going to lose this ship, its all a lot more fun.
Make me think that we are being forced out of safe space..
....What if we don't want to?
Sure you could just say you don't have to if you dont want to .. but surely all the new features are going to be based around this...

A friend suggested that the GMs were in goonfleet and wanted to change the game to suit their playing style..
Well, true or not I stopped playing GuildWars because the devs openly said they were making the game how they wanted because they played it.

I will most certainly stop paying if I feel I am being forced to play pvp.

So stop. But do yourself a favor and TRY before? Being a preconceptious child is not very smart.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Travis Shireen

Tue, 6 May 2008 05:18:00 +0000

I did a big rules/mechanic proposal that was a little big to be posted here.

Player Action Points: A suppliment to Faction Warefare

It addresses potential Soverinty Border changes and allows non PVP style payers to contribute to the war effort.

- Nothing unexplainable in this universe can ever reach the state of being understood if we first do not abandon and ultimately re-invent our current paradigm.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Titas Agor

Mon, 5 May 2008 19:59:00 +0000

Edited by: Titas Agor on 05/05/2008 20:02:16
A lot has been discussed in this particular thread and some if not all of what i might say has already been said but i'd like to add my thoughts anyway.

Factional warefare in my opinion should be just that, factions going to war. Having the ability to descide if you want to take part in it or not i can see why thats there but i seriously think that it would be much better and a hell lot more realistic if you didn't have a choice in the matter. If your an Amarr char, then you should be at war with all minmatar char. and same for gallente and caldari.

I think people want to get more involved with the stories and make more of a bigger impact on the game in general and one way to do this would having the ability to invade the enemies boarders and conquer territories. When i personally first ever head about the concept of factional warefare however long ago it was now, the visions of defending the Kisogo gate from large forces of gallente absolutely rocked! The ability to change certain control of systems like jita no longer being a caldari system anymore. Defending gates or invading gates, making the enemies moving their home starter systems because they've been invaded, one of the many costs of war.

Instead of having to go a damn agent to do anything, it should be almost freelance, jus a whole group of missplaced groups of races going on roaming runs thru enemy systems, perhaps having the possibility of allowing cap ships finnally in empire while the wars are raging would be a neat idea and would actually be an awsome sight to see for any empire based player who normally may never see a real capital ship.

The players that wish to remain neutral could pay like a fee or something, a mil or 500k isk or something to STAY neutral so you dont show up red when going thru enemy systems jus like going through an alliance 0.0 territory. Gate camping with Caldari NPC's would be very good indeed making you feel like your defending the caldari boarders for example.

The introduction to factional NPCs i think would be very important in the lage scale of things, would make you feel like your REALLY getting involved in the story. Jus imagine the story you could tell people how you defended Rens from the ebil amarr trying to enslave such an important system or how 1000 players with Caldari Concord defeated an onslaught of kisogo to defend all the noobs from certain death for several days of gallente capital ship attacks at the station.

I think racial warefare should be extremely important, as that is really the whole point of the factions going to war. If it does end up being like getting missions from agents, having the ability to call for NPC backup every 10 mins or so would really put you right in the middle of the storyline, as someone or many hav mentioned in this thread before.

Being able to control friendly NPCs in large scale battles would give a very rewarding feeling i think, and you could do this in lots of different ways, one way could be that it costs you loyalty points to add NPCs squads and commanders into your fleet/gang and depending on WHAT you want with you, determins how many LP it costs. Like a Caldari navy Raven could cost like 30k LP each for example... Bonus rewards would only be given if your using racial ships to complete the mission, ect... incetives to make it worth while using racial ships to fight these wars...

Am sorry i got to this forum so late, i never really look at this section of the forums before or would hav mentioned my idea's a lot sooner... sorry if all this is repeated, read thru about 10 pages but not every page on this topic.

thx

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Doc Iridium

Sun, 4 May 2008 10:13:00 +0000

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
I am of the opinion that it would be devastatingly unrealistic for the Caldari State and the Gallente Federation to go to war with each other. The Federation has nothing to gain by starting a war with the State, and the only thing the State could possibly gain would be renewed ownership of Caldari Prime - at the cost of billions of lives on both sides, the enmity of the Minmatar, and, eventually, let's face it, the possibility of being overstretched when the Amarr declare war on them - which will happen. If the Amarr go to war with the Minmatar and the Gallente in an attempt to "reclaim" them, they won't stop there - they'll go for the Caldari as well, and both sides know this.

Obviously, it can't be Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar on one side and only Amarr on the other, but I've got to say I don't think that a war between the Federation and the State is in any way appropriate.

Hrm, The Caldari and the Amarr like one another, they are both highly controlling states, one theocracy, the other pseudo-fascist. The Gallente are capitalist/democratic and the Minmatar are, ummm, Anarchist seeking guidance?

How would a war start?

I suspect the Amarr would decide enough is enough and start retaking Minmatar planets. The Gallente would object and come to the aid of the Minmatar. The Caldari would look at the possible ramifications of a defeated Amarr and realize that the balance of power would not be pretty if Amarr went down, so they would backstab the Gallente, ostensibly to take back their home planet, but really to keep the Amarrians around. The homeworld is a nice place but business is business.

War isn't always about who hates each other, sometimes it's about who likes each other too

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Crowdad

Sun, 4 May 2008 01:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Tempest Kane
Edited by: Tempest Kane on 14/09/2007 17:10:59
Will factional low sec stations be conqurable by a corporation or alliance who decides to support/fight for an opposed faction of said station owning faction?

If so i see a strong use and incentive for 0.0 groups to take part and secure low-sec hub points for logistical reasons + cyno nets to empire useing the pos/portaling system.

I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.

Its time for the sandbox to expand inwards.

I totally agree... However I don't see how it would be good if a 0.0 alliance were to be able to conquer lowsec just like they do 0.0. In my opinion lowsec should be about relationship building with either casual players or motivated players, without having to pay homage to somebody who owns everything and has all the skills.

I personally believe it should facilitate pvp to younger players who are willing to take their time to build a corp by recruiting noobs and taking personal time to teach them the game.

For this they should gain serious advantage over invading forces, such as tactical intel about enemies entering a zone, being able to engage without sentry guns shooting at them, and so on...

"New" lowsec shouldn't be just another place for big players to "squeeze".

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Doc Extropy

Sun, 4 May 2008 00:18:00 +0000

I'd like to see two main ideas:

a) Objectives for PVP mixed with PVE - game

This may also include fighting for low sec systems and big fleet action, but also exploration, etc...

and...

b) Free form warfare

More ad hoc pew pew via...

c) New rules for criminal behaviour / CONCORD interference:

* Players with standing > 3.0 towards enemy faction are free kills for enlisted members of the forces in low sec - no sec loss, etc...

* Enlisted players can kill all enlisted players of enemy factions anywhere, anytime... no sec loss, no CONCORD, no whatever

Of course enemy navy can and will interfere... which would be great... would mean more insignias to sell or trade.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Andreus Ixiris

Fri, 2 May 2008 20:09:00 +0000

I am of the opinion that it would be devastatingly unrealistic for the Caldari State and the Gallente Federation to go to war with each other. The Federation has nothing to gain by starting a war with the State, and the only thing the State could possibly gain would be renewed ownership of Caldari Prime - at the cost of billions of lives on both sides, the enmity of the Minmatar, and, eventually, let's face it, the possibility of being overstretched when the Amarr declare war on them - which will happen. If the Amarr go to war with the Minmatar and the Gallente in an attempt to "reclaim" them, they won't stop there - they'll go for the Caldari as well, and both sides know this.

Obviously, it can't be Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar on one side and only Amarr on the other, but I've got to say I don't think that a war between the Federation and the State is in any way appropriate.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Yaug Sauthauth

Fri, 2 May 2008 18:26:00 +0000

Edited by: Yaug Sauthauth on 02/05/2008 18:29:02
Edited by: Yaug Sauthauth on 02/05/2008 18:26:08
I've only skimmed a couple of posts so this is probably just repeating some ideas, but here are a few changes that I'd like to see.

1. Instead of locking people out of stations that belong to hostile factions, make the stations charge prohibitive prices for station services, and if the faction standing is bad enough, refuse the use of ALL station services. (This could be justified by a clause in the CONCORD agreement requiring stations to grant ALL capsuleers docing permission. If so, stations in 0 sec would not be bound by this agreement ...)

2. Add rank hierarchies to factions. Pilots of higher rank would be assigned pilots of lower ranks and would have missions made available to them according to their rank for their unit to complete. Rank advancement could be based on mission performance, faction standings and leadership skill (after all, a Wing Commander needs to be able to command, well, a wing). Essentially the unit leader would be a kind of agent for his subordinate pilots. However, he could also gather the entire unit for some missons.

3. Missons could be made long term like "defend deadspace area x", "destroy hostiles coming through stargate y".

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Pliauga

Thu, 1 May 2008 15:53:00 +0000

I just hope FW will let me do covert op raids deep into Amarr slave breeding worlds. Trying to smugle slave children back to Matar. Or maybe entire slave colonies.

This could require deploying some type of commando squad on the planet/station/outpost or just a single secret agent, then wait for him gather enough people to smugle out. Then do a paranoid run towards friendly space, with patrols of Amarr navy and/or CVA/PIE in hot persuit.

Looking forward to FW.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Salient Soldier

Thu, 1 May 2008 08:34:00 +0000

fix 0.0 first..

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by OffBeaT

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:06:00 +0000

sounds like a real blast!

i cant wait, it will be a real kool role playing advancer for evryone too jump into.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Zartach Tzarszh

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:15:00 +0000

I am a bit concerned on how to achieve this with a corporation. eg, at the moment my corporation was started by a Minnie with good standings against minmatar. Now some friends have joined (the RL kind) and they range over all races with the standings now all over the place.

Is there any thought about people who would like to jump in on this and have their personal standings reverse to for example their corp? And any way for them to for example denounce their alliance with that faction, a way to change sides if you will?

Especially in the beginning if this standing thing will become a huge thing i could see some people being left to a grind on a faction they now have -5 against for example.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Doc Iridium

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:35:00 +0000

Originally by: usemypic
Originally by: Doc Iridium
I think it would be utterly foolish to implement factional warfare when current PVP as so utterly broken.

2) Get so many people in grid that the enemy can't load the grid before they are dead.

If this is true, it would be silly to advance pvp any further until issues like that and lagstuff are sorted ...

There are changes coming that will allow nodes to share computing power, and this will help lag a lot. Unfortunately this will only make people want to gather in even _larger_ blobs, which will in short order create combat lag again, IHMO.

Penalties for excessive numbers of ships in a system need to happen somehow, or people will simply continue to blob more and more massively.
Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by usemypic

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:00 +0000

Originally by: Doc Iridium
I think it would be utterly foolish to implement factional warfare when current PVP as so utterly broken.

2) Get so many people in grid that the enemy can't load the grid before they are dead.

If this is true, it would be silly to advance pvp any further until issues like that and lagstuff are sorted ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Melanika

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:08:00 +0000

My suggestion is:
1. Giant wormhole appeared somewhere in highsec between empires.
2. Scientists discovered how to use it and it leads to new sector of space, the systems in this sector are completely different from usual solarsystems (double stars, massive planets of strange forms, rich asteroid fields.. maybe a black hole etc), systems connested to each other by small wormholes (no gates, but similar purpose)
3. All 4 empires want to explore that new part of space (and joves secretely ).
4. all 4 claims that they discovered this sector before others so the fight begins, but only there (not across all EVE map)
5. agents starts to secretely recruit capsulers to fight for them
6. if player\corporation signs up for faction, they are supplied with some special faction points (FP), wich can be traded for ships (no isk required). You will receive them if:
-patrol\scout area (per time)
-complete special mission for agent
-destroy other faction npc ship or structure
You will lose them if:
-shoot allies
-don't do anything for faction (per time)

7. systems soverenty can be changed if you kill all npc and hold it before npc reinforcement arrive

8. it is up to players wich faction will own this sector (and became highsec(if you hold solarsystem long enough)) or claim them for some allience (0.0 if you kill all npc). I mean dynamic security status.

9. so it'll be like empire players + massive, STRONG force of npc vs alliences.

10. hoghsec players will not lose all assets because ships will be supplied by empires (FP).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:54:00 +0000

Blobing costs. It costs time of many many people, who would otherwise hav more fun, more kills or make isk. Blobbing and killing nothing / little lowers morale and kills alliances with boredom. Ability to keep morale up so that 300 people want to fly in blobs is a skill too, so blobing requires skill in some sense :)

And AFK cloaking is not an efficient tactic, its just teasing enemies.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Doc Iridium

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:34:00 +0000

I think it would be utterly foolish to implement factional warfare when current PVP as so utterly broken.

The most powerful tactics in current PVP combat.

1) Cloak and go AFK.

2) Get so many people in grid that the enemy can't load the grid before they are dead.

The two most powerful tactics in PVP in eve - and both have nothing to do with skill.

Why would we think that factional PVP will be anything different?

Well, I've said my piece - wait, is that Veldspar over there? Woot!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by usemypic

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:12:00 +0000

Having read the mmorpg.com interviewI felt as though the games developers were trying to force everybody into pvp.
As far as I'm concerned pvp is not all that fun. I am looking forward to the ambulation release so that I can walk around a station with stunning graphics, grab a drink, sit, talk.. walk my pet?
Anyway comments like:
"The goal with this expansion, Woodward tells us, is to try to bridge the gap between players who play in safe space, generally running missions and the like and the players who are actively engaging in the games PvP."
and
"Youre going to die a lot because thats what PvP is about. Still, once you get into the mindset of Im going to lose this ship, its all a lot more fun.
Make me think that we are being forced out of safe space..
....What if we don't want to?
Sure you could just say you don't have to if you dont want to .. but surely all the new features are going to be based around this...

A friend suggested that the GMs were in goonfleet and wanted to change the game to suit their playing style..
Well, true or not I stopped playing GuildWars because the devs openly said they were making the game how they wanted because they played it.

I will most certainly stop paying if I feel I am being forced to play pvp.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Wren Alterana

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:22:00 +0000

Originally by: Ehranavaar
as long as there is some mechanic for allowing slaving raids into minmatar space faction warfare will be fun.

far too many unclaimed matar running about these days.

if there's slaving raids there needs to be slave freeing raids. you kidnapped 5 people? well we'll free ALL your slaves! take that dirty amarr!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ehranavaar

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:54:00 +0000

as long as there is some mechanic for allowing slaving raids into minmatar space faction warfare will be fun.

far too many unclaimed matar running about these days.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Wren Alterana

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Torothanax
I'd love to go blow up players and NPCs for The Republic. I'd love to futher our cause, and erase the Amarr from the face of the universe.

Is there any way to make it a REAL war rather then endless, pointless combat. Well combat ain't completely pointless, as it is rather entertaining to make people dead and property dust. What I mean is can we have actual goals that change the shape of the universe. Take objectives, capture resources and equipment, cut enemy supply lines in order to take teritory? Plunder and destroy stations, burn worlds, alter maps. Would it be possible to actually force another faction to surrender, or destroy them completely?

I also think it would be cool to have some actual CCP staff leading the factions. Setting objectives and goals as they see fit, completely unknow to the other faction leaders outside of game mechanics, to ultimately win for thier side.

Different factions would of course have diffent views as to what "winning" would be. Not every faction has to be out to conquer the universe or wipe another faction out. Some could just want to expand a bit, or hold what they have. Some may want purely monitary gain. Some could be suicidal. Others fanatic in some way or another. Make one or two completely insane and totally random even.

Goals could change over time. Defeats could require revised thinking. New officals could be elected. Throw a coup or civil war in. Key leaders could be killed or die. Maybe some factions get sick of blood shed and call for a halt to hostilities. Factions could split. New religions could spring up. Endless possiblities for storyline.

I'd like to have an actual effect on the universe, or even if I pick the wrong side, see the universe change over time.

this is a great idea.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Torothanax

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:14:00 +0000

I'd love to go blow up players and NPCs for The Republic. I'd love to futher our cause, and erase the Amarr from the face of the universe.

Is there any way to make it a REAL war rather then endless, pointless combat. Well combat ain't completely pointless, as it is rather entertaining to make people dead and property dust. What I mean is can we have actual goals that change the shape of the universe. Take objectives, capture resources and equipment, cut enemy supply lines in order to take teritory? Plunder and destroy stations, burn worlds, alter maps. Would it be possible to actually force another faction to surrender, or destroy them completely?

I also think it would be cool to have some actual CCP staff leading the factions. Setting objectives and goals as they see fit, completely unknow to the other faction leaders outside of game mechanics, to ultimately win for thier side.

Different factions would of course have diffent views as to what "winning" would be. Not every faction has to be out to conquer the universe or wipe another faction out. Some could just want to expand a bit, or hold what they have. Some may want purely monitary gain. Some could be suicidal. Others fanatic in some way or another. Make one or two completely insane and totally random even.

Goals could change over time. Defeats could require revised thinking. New officals could be elected. Throw a coup or civil war in. Key leaders could be killed or die. Maybe some factions get sick of blood shed and call for a halt to hostilities. Factions could split. New religions could spring up. Endless possiblities for storyline.

I'd like to have an actual effect on the universe, or even if I pick the wrong side, see the universe change over time.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Torothanax

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:58:00 +0000

I'd love to go blow up players and npc for The Republic. I'd love to futher our cause, and erase the Amarr from the face of the universe.

Is there any way to make it a REAL war rather then endless, pointless combat. Well combat ain't completely pointless, as it is rather entertaining to make people dead and property dust. What I mean is can we have actual goals that change the shape of the universe. Take objectives, capture resources and equipment, cut enemy supply lines in order to take teritory? Plunder and destroy stations, burn worlds, alter maps. Would it be possible to actually force another faction to surrender, or destroy them completely?

I also think it would be cool to have some actual CCP staff leading the factions. Setting objectives and goals as they see fit, completely unknow to the other faction leaders outside of game mechanics, to ultimately win for thier side.

Different factions would of course have diffent views as to what "winning" would be. Not every faction has to be out to conquer the univers or wipe another faction out. Some could just want to expand a bit, or hold what they have. Some may want purely monitary gain. Some could be suicidal. Others fanatic in some way or another. Make one completely insane and totally random.

I'd like have an actual effect on they universe, or even if I pick the wrong side, see the univers change drasticly over time.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kavin Alavandar

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:09:00 +0000

It makes more sense to me for the factional warfare to be heavier in empire space than in the unclaimed territories, considering that we are looking at war between the empires first.

I am wondering, though, just how the factions are going to be set against each other. Are we looking at each empire versus every other? I imagine something more fiction-driven would be:

Amarr
Caldari: Neutral or Ally
Gallente: Minor Enemy
Minmatar: Major Enemy

Caldari
Amarr: Neutral or Ally
Gallente: Major Enemy
Minmatar: Minor Enemy

Gallente
Amarr: Minor Enemy
Caldari: Major Enemy
Minmatar: Neutral or Ally

Minmatar
Amarr: Major Enemy
Caldari: Minor Enemy
Gallente: Neutral or Ally

Which appeals to me greatly, really. It is what I expected from release, based on the fiction.
__________________________________________________
'The illiterate of this century are not those who cannot read and write; but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.'

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Potes

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:43:00 +0000

Hi there just a quick point that i think has been missed in this long and effective thread!

If theoretically im an amarr character flying for a corporation who decides to join Gallante 4 FW, do i have to then fight on the Gallente side? because i would loath to fight for any faction other than amarr and to be forced into a certain side of FW because of the side my corp chooses. This in turn would force me to consider leaving my corp if FW was a great attraction.

Im hoping the choice to join Factional Warfare will be on the individual player level rather than just the corporation level as was disccussed early on in the thread.

Oh also the idea of creating deadspace zones in highsec so not as to disrupt other arenas is a good idea.
however i like the idea of their being a fw warfare battle goin on in a lowsec system... i.e. amarr vs gallente. And then being able to call on the nearest band of pirates/ friends / passers by in local to help me and my amarrian comrades in the name of the emperor to blast these heathens and they will be richly awarded....
sounds like fun to me.

regards potes

regards
potes

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithfindel

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:17:00 +0000

Well, based on the dev blog about new systems, it wouldn't be that far fetched to call for a few new regions. Right now the cluster is almost flat - what if some revolutionary tech would allow to colonize on the direction of the "depth" axis, opening a wealth of new worlds to be colonized by the first empire to bring enough firepower to bear - kind of "Empire 0.0". Think about the New World and the age of imperialism.

Oh, and it would be totally sweet to see the Minmatar Republic capture systems from lower-tech natives, forcefully claiming their worlds just because they could.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sean Mcarthur

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:47:00 +0000

Edited by: Sean Mcarthur on 18/04/2008 08:50:09
As I see it it won't be the big allout war but instead hostility along the borders so fights in high sek where navies attack stations and so on is not going to happen.

An ide I had would to be arrange battlezones where there is a gate for each team. These battlezones can be placed even in high sek in a deadspace where concord can not detect what is going on.
The gate has only so much power, as it is a made in haste to stop the opposing team from getting to the goal of the mission first.

Now ships going trough the gate will consume power and the bigger the ship the more power it takes, when the power is spent no more ship can enter.
That way only a limited gang can enter the fight, if they want to use a big gang of small crafts or a small gang of big ships that is up to the players.

maybe even have the agents give the teams a number of tokens that is needed to activate the gate, that way it is possible to stop HUGE frigswarms, and the strategi where teams probeout the opposing gate and use its power instead of only their own.

best part is that ccp can use the tournament base of ship worth so we can have our own mini tournments all over the place:-)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by DeT Resprox

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:29:00 +0000

posted Here

One thing i would like to see and that i think should be made possible:

1: In each Faction's top Corporation (such as Republic Fleet for The Minmatar Republic as an example), place a Faction Agent. This is just an idea, you could possibly place an agent in any station belonging to that faction in any corp belonging to it.

2: Opening comms with that agent will allow you to register your corporation for factional warfare, but you must have a minimal standing with that Faction for acceptance. This way, corporations will be able to register for Factional Warfare with that race.

3: CCP/ISD play out how Factional Warfare evolves, ie race relations result in factions at peace or at war with each other based upon ingame events being accomplished.

The above should be easy to implement, but i guess that the main issue CCP will have is that there will be an awful lot of fighting going on resulting in server resource drain - which is bound to happen with Factional Warfare in any case. Code could easily be implemented to take into account the ship type involved in each kill of an opposite faction ship, so that Factional Agents can reward isk and LP accordingly.

----------------------

I wish to also point out, that T.R.I.A.D is purely player run and is in no way associated with CCP/ISD as has been misinterpreted by many following the announcement HERE. All combat missions taken through us will affect your standings unless you are at war with the target in the mission or in our corp/alliance. Factional warfare implementations by CCP will of course allow for this to happen without penalties which we are encouraging.
DeT Resprox
T.R.I.A.D CEO

TRIAD website - The ONLY player agency in EvE

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Robert VonBraun

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:00:00 +0000

My Idea is to just have the Faction Navy Corps Joinable by players and they are at a constant state of war with each other caldari vs. Gallente, ammar vs. Minmatar. or cald/ammar vs. minm/gallente. players could come and go from the corps as they wish.
Option 2 is a variation of the above instaed of joining corp you have faction warfare agents you go talk to agent and he flags you for the war for 24hr period.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Opertone

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:40:00 +0000

how about massive gallente NPC attacks on jita? I think that encounters must happen in space at any time (bad for everyone as a war victim) not only when you accept them in missions

Occasionally multiple NPC thanatoses must attack high sec systems and destroy player characters of other races as well as Caldari NPCs and CONCORD... it will be logical if NPCs start raiding high sec and attacking players and POSes

for example the gallente go at war with caldari... gallente are know for their carrier superiority... a group of carriers jumps in and starts wiping out caldari structure stations and non gallente characters... in 0.5 caldari can not resist the attacks and the gallente spawn everywhere... since it is war the concord doesn't interfere... the war lasts for a month

the developers decide when the CALDARI start counter attack - i.e. build make carriers and dreads and defend themselves - this will add more political events

ALSO the Sansha's NPC should come and trash bang ammarian ships... Sansha's should spawn in bigger fleets and fight at stations gates and where possible

Factions should have their own economy, upon which their base their strategy, NPC alliances should be joinable by player corporations

perhaps the devs can control the idea's behind the faction actions, each of them takes one faction under their command and start materialising their battleplans

but it is obvious that encounters must happen randomly in SPACE, so you think twice befoe you want to **** off any of them

i.e. -7.8 standings with guristas mean that they follow you into high sec and randomly ambush if you aren't ready to fight them

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jehlom

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:00 +0000

For all those short on ISK, skills or whose main is not combat orientated can you think of a means of enabling us to get into battle quickly, cheaply and without significant disruption to our corp life or other day jobs.

In addition to the sort freeform warfare thats been suggested Im thinking of something along the following lines:

Those that want to dip into the fight would be able to do something like fly to a local navy HQ and enlist for a battle. You could then jump straight from you territory into a clone at a station deep in enemy space. Borrow navy ship (with choice of fittings) and be sent out to on a mission, such as to gather some player/NPC scalps, general harrasment of the area or something more scripted like to help attack a station. When you want out you return to the day job you dock back at the station, give back the ship (and fittings) and jump back home.

Standings warfare/LP points could influence the rank, ships and implants available when you jump into your navy clone.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by MotherMoon

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:21:00 +0000

just release some sort of plan god damn it lol.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mithfindel

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:44:00 +0000

Edited by: Mithfindel on 10/04/2008 08:54:55
Edited by: Mithfindel on 10/04/2008 08:49:32
It would be interesting if the system security could be dynamic (within limits). So the faction warfare stays in lowsec (hello, war isn't safe!), but once the war advances further towards hisec, the neighbor systems become lower sec, and similarly, the "losing" Empire brings in more NPC ships to drive the invaders away. Some systems would need to be cut off limits - say, sec >0.8 can't be dynamic.

Also, there are a few problematic things (besides of "how the **** you program that", but that's not my problem). Does the system change ownership? Then, what happens with the POS anchored there, as they have wrong empire's charters (well, could call bad luck, don't put your pos in a war zone)? Also, if what was temporarily lowsec becomes hisec again as invaders are driven away, and you could potentially end up with a load of caps in the hisec system, with using them being an exploit? Or perhaps these dynamic sec systems should be "permanently cynojammed" (entirely plausible, if alliances can do it, empires likely can do it as well - and in these hundreds of years being there and a capability to have deadspace "POS", the empires sure have some nice deep safes with "cynojammers").

Edit to avoid double post: And then, there should be some kind of mechanic to promote team play. Lone pilots grinding missions isn't "war", factional or otherwise. It's "targets for pirate gankers". Possibly some kind of "faction gang" interface for team-seeking, perhaps even an "open faction gang" (though it might encourage griefers enter the gang and otherwise could be a broken mechanic). EVE revolves around corps, so perhaps this could be some kind of added bonus if there are multiple players ganged up from the same corp. (Fear the wrath of SWA! Okay, perhaps the rookie corps should not be able to join, but if people want to stay in NPC corps and join faction warfare, perhaps they should be able to enlist to factional navies.)

Second edit: As witnessed by the above paragraph, I don't quite think factional warfare should be just a "level VI mission", but instead an interface where corps could enlist to a side. After that, they get a (dynamically generated?) list of objectives for the day. Rewards appear by completing these objectives. New objectives at each downtime. (For example, if the Caldari have advanced over the border, the Gallente objective could be to "hold deadspaces x, y and z". If this is fulfilled well enough (more objectives completed than failed) it could turn into "take deadspaces a, b and c back" in the system, or in the case of a decisive victory (all objectives completed) an all-out assault (advance into system p, take deadspaces q, r and s).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:06:00 +0000

Factional warfare should be not limited or concentrated to low sec.
It will add "piracy" and "ganking blobs" into it.
Not tasty, if "gankers" gets the dmg bonus of Npcs u fight against , and the simply enter your Warfare mission.
Plz bring the Facional warfare into high security systems, and add a system , where fights will be limited in numbers of players, to make it interesting, and not like "whocanfieldthelargestgang".

Add an effect to the systems/ npc- stations where is the warfare running, to let players within the system/area feel the war.
(Reduced bonus/services on stations to let peoples think about getting involved in the fight against the enemies.)

Add rewards like station bonuses to reduce tax/ refining looses, lower building costs/building time on equip/ ships.
(would make it interesting for industrials too, risking a bit)

Low sec Factional warfare should be "If" capital sized, limited in numbers, and high rewarded upon the risk.

Plz: Kepp blobs away from it, and turn it into interesting fights.
Dont order Warfare players into low sec, better bring the fights to them.( pvp system within empire away from concord)
Players which starts warfae should be marked for 48 hrs + where they vulnerable. Independed from the possiblity to stop a mission.
If he killed a player, Killrights should be active on him, to increase the possibilty to fight him.

"I think the balancing on this factional warfare is a hell of work, include founding a way to make it realy interesting."

breg

mac

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

EVE FAN since 2003

Wode, Wode, hale dinnen Rosse nu voder, nu Diestel un Dorn, Schter jar beter Korn!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Boon McBwen

Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:49:00 +0000

Why should the war need be restricted to low sec space? Real wars know no boundaries, and if there is a legal war going on, there would be no need for everything to be occurring in Indian country...
I think, there could be a 'no-man's land" of border systems where the brunt of the fighting will happen, with the occasional forays deep into enemy territory. This could be easily be accomplished by locking stargates from enemy use.
I also feel that the higher a characters standing with their respective navies, the higher the responsibility allotted to that character (for instance, someone with a standing approaching 10 could be assigned the command of a fleet), also, if you are going to fight in an engagement as a navy pilot, ships, to some extent, should be underwritten by the navies and faction gear supplied.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Polinus

Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:36:00 +0000

Originally by: TordenSkiold
I think Ginger pretty much listed it well at War is Devine.

However, as the number of Eve players constantly grow, Empire is getting a bit over-crowded. Indeed Eve itself is showing symptoms of it.

Factional Warfare may therefore also be used as a part of expanding hi-sec into low-sec, and expanding low-sec into 0.0.

And of course 0.0 must also grow into new regions.

Factional warfare need to have a purpose, a goal, a reason behind it. Otherwise it'll be to much like current mission running: you do it for ISK, items/bonuses, standings etc., not so much because it is fun . . . so it's kinda like working, and not so much like playing

-.. - .... .-.

If Empires attack null sec that than shoudl automatically allow 0.0 alliances to freely shoot anyone in empire in return without concord intervention.

Being more clear, if the republic takes sover for a Goon system for example. Nothing more fair then allowing goons to take republic system. And Do you really think empire dewelers are a match for the huge coalitions of 0.0 alliances that exist today?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Scagga Laebetrovo

Tue, 8 Apr 2008 02:48:00 +0000

Insurance

I would like to see the devolution of insurance, i.e. you insure with the faction that owns the station you are in. That means, effectively, that you cannot insure with the tribal heathens up north if you've got a threshold negative standing with them.

Also, I would like to see insurance payouts be lowered if the ships are lost frequently/within a very quick timeframe, and a 'no-claims' bonus to people who lose few ships. This penalises people insuring and immediately destroying their ships, gives a consequence for self-destructing your ship (your future insurance payouts may be reduced).

Espionage Agents

Information such as where the corp bpos are held, in my opinion, should be station specific. Personally, I think this should be an agent function. There could be certain level 5 agents that specialise in espionage - and only for certain corporations. For a significant fee, and with a chance of failure, they can access the hangar data of a pilot you provide the name of. You can therefore know where and what they have in their hangars, if they are in stations belonging to the faction your agent is in.

This, in my mind, makes sense. It isn't logical that an enemy of a certain faction should be able to come to their home stations and have access to such sensitive data. However, if an aggressor is coming to stations you are friendly too, surely your can grease the wheels a bit and find out what they're bringing. This kind of feature, I would hope, would help against scout alts - you'd already know all the ships that your enemy would be capable of bringing to the fight thanks to your agents.

San Matari Official forums

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by UrsaeMajoris

Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:29:00 +0000

A very slight discount on LP store items depending on your standings with the store's faction and if you are in fact a member of said faction, would be nice.

E.g. if you were a member of Republic Security Services and had a corp and minmatar faction standing of both 9.0 minimum, LP store items would be 10% cheaper.

Just a little encouragement to be a member of an NPC faction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tim Dust

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:44:00 +0000

Are player corps allowed to open their own loyalty point stores?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 11:40:00 +0000

Minds about a possible " lpoint/reward store" and modifying/named stuff.

"Lpoint shop" ( empire agents) stays like now

"Rank based shop" ( factional warfare agents)

Upon the rank of a pilot, he is able to get stuff from this store.
There should be no "Lpoints" like empire faction against.
U could only get stuff out of the Rank based shop, with change it to Mission specific stuff.
( Like special tags away from empire tags)
Perhaps it could be depended on the numbers of kills u have done.
Something like this will guaranty, that u had to run a lot of missions, and make yourself vulnerable to other pilots from the enemy faction u work against.
Upon the rank of the player, the rewards will increase step by step.
Adding the medals into this shop too, which open the way for limited bpcs to modify/ and name stuff.
(keep in mind :No medals without sucessfull Pvp and lootet special player Tags)
The quality of this bpc should increase with every rank, include the stuff which is able to modify.
Upon the rank of VIII- XI, there should be limited faction based ship bpcs to modify. ( gives back faction navy ships a new meaning and importance, if there wher used as a platform for modifying and name)
Which kind of bonuses are up to the ones which work is balancing the things.
Also inside this shop and missions , there should be the material, which is needed for modifying stuff. Perhaps adding rigg components and new advanced reactions into it.
Modified stuff should cost , something around the middle to high end officer stuff.

Optional for the future,should be Tech II moduls the base of modifying stuff, to improve the tech II market, and introduce a new technology.

can something like this work???

I think balancing the mods it s the most difficult stuff from this idea.

What is possible against farming ranks like this with alts?.

Perhaps a Database, which adds your kills of a player. If it reach a number of 20 kill on the same pilot within xxx hrs, this should be delivered to the command. Which degrade u and, mark u with an opional warning.
Also to jon factional warfare u should have a minimum of 5-6 faction standing.
This will keep 1 day alts away from it.
Upon the rank of a player, kills on much lower ranks will not effect the upgrade to a higher rank.
Upgrades should be depended on the quality of the pilot/group u had killed.

breg mac

sry. for all gramma mistakes, hope its possible understand

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

EVE FAN since 2003

Wode, Wode, hale dinnen Rosse nu voder, nu Diestel un Dorn, Schter jar beter Korn!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 01:32:00 +0000

The possibility of locating Enemies should mark them.
Which means if u locates him from an agent, u can ask him, which high is the interest of killing him.
If several Enemies are located within the agent area, he could set a list of interest in them.( high/medium/low interest)
If u get killed them successfully, u will get Honour points from the Agent.
Upon the numbers of Honour points, u will be rewarded with a Medal.

Medals: Rank I-VII : General service medals in several qualitys
Rank VIII- XI : Special service medals in several qualitys

Medals should be also a requirement to upgrade your rank. At least it should not be able to upgrade from Rank VIII-> to Rank IX without several high quality medals.
(U need be proofed and graduated before u go a step higher)

Missions within empire faction warfare should be adapted to the rank of the player. At least from a Rank of V they should be no more solo able, similar to normal empire Agents.

Fleet command includes limiting of groups.

The Player with the highest Rank within a group should be able to fit a connection rigg.
It limits the numbers of players within the group.
Connection riggs like this, are limited in ship sizes. Only faction warfare players are able to join this group, which have the same Rank level or Lower.
Help from other Player isnt needed and welcome to stop ganking or involving players which are short time faction warfares.

To make it possible for other player to fight u, they had to get first informations from there agent. If u gets your informations then, u can accept an Order against them.
This will open you the way to fight them. If someone else wane fight them too, they had to join your fleet. Otherwise u has the limitation to kill him. The agent will not get this order to other player then, include informations.
Something like this can guaranty, that it will be a fair fight away from high number fleet ganking, and make it interesting.
The agent will handle u a rigg , which modify the onboard scanner, and u can scan him down.

The fight starts.

If u are successful u will get upon your Rank honour points etc
If u are not successful it decrease your status.

Degrading:

Upon a number of non successful missions u had accept against other player, u will be degraded to a lower Rank.

Rewards: ???

Should support u within factional warfare. And increase pa example Gang assist within a fleet.
Fleetcomandships/
Modules which are made to increase the power of a Fleet, which is limited in numbers.

Perhaps something this could limit ganking. Increasing the fun , and make it more interesting.

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

EVE FAN since 2003

Wode, Wode, hale dinnen Rosse nu voder, nu Diestel un Dorn, Schter jar beter Korn!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Sat, 5 Apr 2008 01:31:00 +0000

some more thoughts on it.
I hope its possible to understand.

What about something like this?

Ranks within Faction warfare similar to the royal Navy.

Rank I : Midshipman
Rank II : Sub-Lieutenant
Rank III : Lieutenant
Rank IV : Lieutenant commander
Rank V : Commander
Rank VI : Captain
Rank VII : Commodore
Rank VIII : Rear Admiral
Rank IX : Vice Admiral
Rank X : Admiral
Rank XI : Fleet Admiral

Everyone starts as a Midshipman within this scenario. The Faction will handle u a named Tag, which had to be put inside an extra slot within your ship.
This Tags slots will be limited inside every ship.
Like: Rank I- II status: = frig/ cruiser sized ship optional BS/Hacs
Rank III-V status: = Minimum battle cruisers/ Battleship optional Tech II
Rank VI-VIII status: =Minimum Battleships / tech II cruisers/ commands- Optional tech II battleships
Rank IX- X status:= minimum Tech II ships/ optional capital ship
Rank XI : = minimum capital ship

This Tag will mark u, that u are doing faction warfare. And his role is making u nearly ALLTIME vulnerable within empire to Players from the other faction.
Concord will not come if u meets some other players, except in front of stations. To keep ganking scenarios away from it.
A Rank system like this could keep farmers away from it. At least u would waste a lot more before u can update your rank.

It should not be possible to insure your ship.
The faction u work for, should start with a refund of 20 % of the ship minerals as a midshipmen.
Upon your Rank it increase step by step to a level, where u get the full worth of mineral back if u loose.( Rank IX-XI)

To get the Midshipman status u should bring enemy faction tags. (Similar to several successful finished Midst of dead space missions pa example). This will prove u, that u are willing to run factional warfare.
Within the Midshipman status u will get missions, which let u fight against Npcs, which drops specific mission loot.
Upon your activity around this, u will go inside a databank which makes it possible for the enemy faction to keep infos from you, to your enemies. Like: Last activity around??? system. Ship size??? Actually activity???... (Similar like the locating agents).
To upgrade your Rank to a sub lieutenant, u had to run several Missions successfully.
From the status of a sub- lieutenant the Pvp should really starts within factional warfare then.
Means to upgrade your Rank from a sub- lieutenant to a Lieutenant, U need several named enemy faction tags, which drops from the extra slots of there ships.

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

EVE FAN since 2003

Wode, Wode, hale dinnen Rosse nu voder, nu Diestel un Dorn, Schter jar beter Korn!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by MotherMoon

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 20:39:00 +0000

I just want to see blue rats in space please.

that way if I make 0.0 blood raider space my home the rats there will not fire at me and will protect me if I come under attack.

sure I won't be able to rat there without ****ing them off but I could run missions.

of crouse they wouldn't be like conchord, but don't undersetimate the power of 3 NPC battleships as back up in a fight.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tim Dust

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:48:00 +0000

You could allow empires to conquer each others' systems, but in such away that Caldari systems always remain Caldari systems (for example). If the Caldari agree to a treaty with the Gallente and give up several systems, allow the Gallente to control the systems as vassals, but continue to call them Caldari systems.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hlidskjalf

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 13:23:00 +0000

Some additions.

Faction Warefare tallies could be done either daily (at downtime) or weekly. Its here that the influences of factions are calculated pretaining to Effective Sovereignty. Its here that a system can change hands.

Warefare is restricted to systems 0.8 and below. Newbie areas and heavily crowded systems like Jita have enough lag to deal with, without battles.

Having Faction Mark status marks your ship with a secondary box around any existing box to other players. (Eg, green box (or diamond) for Faction, blue for allied, grey for neutral, red for enemies. This is visible to all.

People with Faction Marks can join Faction-Fleets, specialised fleets that fly under the banner of a corperation and receive bonuses depending on the faction (Freight - speed, targetting speed. Industry - Repair/Boost bonus. Military - Shield/Armour hp). These bonuses are increased for numbers of people in a fleet up to a maximum cap of 10%. WC's and FC's will increase bonus faster up to the cap.
People from other factions or without a Faction Mark are unable to join a Faction Fleet.

Upon recieving a Faction Mark, you auto join a Faction Chat Channel, which cannot be opened by other means, or closed until you are no longer Marked.

When you choose your Faction, you become affiliated with them, even when not in Warfare. This exposes you to the bonuses and detremental effects of Faction sovereignty.

Upon losing your ship, you lose Marked Status, and must have it re-applied by an Agent. Note that losing a ship will deduct FP from yourself. This is not ship dependant.

- - - - - - - - -
High sec miner. Why could possibly compel me to hurl my Retriever into low sec at you, unless it were loaded with explosives, and would destroy you too. :)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hlidskjalf

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:46:00 +0000

Edited by: Hlidskjalf on 04/04/2008 11:47:03
I'm going to risk ridicule and death here.

Has anyone ever played FFXI?
In FFXI, you can use something called Signet, which marks you as an adventurer of your chosen home kingdom. Defeating enemies while under this earns you Conqest Points that can be exchanged for items. Futher expansions have introduced Sanction (Treasures of Aht Urghun) and Siggil (Wings of the Goddess). These are used in different areas for much the same reason. Siggil, the latest incarnation, links with other factors to allow participation in Campaign battles, fighting for your country.

Heres the contravesial thing - I think we could take some points from FFXI into that game. Signet/Sanction/Siggil was optional, but opened up a new range of benifits and rewards. Here's what could happen.

The Faction Warfare is introduced on top of game play. It should be optional.

To take part, you speak to an agent for your choesn faction, and they agree to sponsor you as a hired privateer or mercenary.

Doing so marks you for 12 real life hours as a pilot of your faction.

During that 12 hours, you become involved in your factions diplomacy. Allied corperations and friendly corperations cannot be attacked. Enemy corperations (from another empire, competators etc) can be attacked at will ONLY if they have Faction Pilot status. Concord will not interfere.

The Faction Pilot Tag (lets call it the Faction Mark) can be removed by re-speaking to an agent of your faction. However, there is a 3 hour cool off period between re-applications to prevent abuse.

When under the faction mark, you cannot undertake missions.

Solar systems start out with a Sovereignty. Fighting in a system of your faction grants you small bonuses to all your stats (shields, armour, weapons etc).

Sovereignty is interchangable. Sovereignty influence is gained by kills performed in that system, and lost if losses made in that system. Also, any kill will add a very minute addition to all sovereignties, and a loss the same. This means that a faction who is doing poorly in a war loses influence in other areas. If Faction A performs enough kills against Faction B in a B system, Effective Sovereignty can switch to A.

Sovereignty results could be tallied at the end of every week, similar to FFXI.

Killing enemy ships (NOT POD! Pod = Concord Crime unless in low sec.*) rewards you with Faction Points (FP). FP depend on what ships you were flying, what systems the battle was done in, numbers and damage incured. EXAMPLE - A cruiser killing a battlecruiser would generate far more FP than a cruiser-cruiser kill. Taking less damage gives you more FP. Making kills in a system controlled by an enemy corperation would generate more FP as well.

* - Podding someone in Faction Warefare in low sec could generate far more FP and Sovereignty Influence.

Faction Points are stored like LP, and can be accessed by a similar store. Prizes should be higher than LP, but without item costs. There should also be an option to perform a one way port of all FP to LP.

If you live in a system controled by your faction, you experience decreased taxes, refining waste, and increased LP and mission prizes. Consiquently, if your system is under foreign control, expect increased taxes, wastes and poorer mission bounties.

When you choose a faction, you become locked to that faction. You may choose to leave it, but will be unable to join another faction for 48 hours. All your FP are wiped from this, and you incur an LP penalty.

I know, I know, its long and it involves another game, so I am open to any and all flames. But personally, I think it could work here. EVE has the perfect setting for it. :)
- - - - - - - - -
High sec miner. Why could possibly compel me to hurl my Retriever into low sec at you, unless it were loaded with explosives, and would destroy you too. :)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jade Mitch

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:03:00 +0000

Get rid of Concord! Let the faction navies secure their respective soveriegnties from 1.0 to 0.5 systems while they dispute the soveriegnties of 0.4 to 0.1 systems.

Have faction navies respond in large fleets with all sizes of ships in 1.0 systems and decrease the fleet sizes and ship sizes in lower security systems. Have only small gangs of navy frigits 0.1 systems.

Only lower a player's faction standings when navy ships, responding to aggression, find evidence of a player's hostility at the scene- i.e. a ship wreck with their name on it. In 0.1 to 0.4 systems, an aggressive player would only loose standing with a faction if that faction's navy finds evidence of aggression against a player with positive standing.

Let more than one faction's navy respond to aggressions in 0.1 to 0.4 systems. Have them always defend players with positive faction standings and attack players and other navy ships with either neutral, negative or less positive standing.

Have the faction navies respond to hostilities in all systems only after a 3 minute delay and have them appear a hundred kms from the location.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tim Dust

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:45:00 +0000

Let players run the empires, with full control over resources and policy. Also let players run the local systems and handle policing themselves. Allow the player-run empires to decide who to fight and what the missions will be; let them pay for wars with tax revenue.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TYBURNTREE

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 04:37:00 +0000

ah geez I wish I read this before I went and posted this

Smashing idea. Something I think is really missing from the game.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by MotherMoon

Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:44:00 +0000

any chance of command ships boosting friendly NPC in factional warfare missions?

will remote repping be allowed on friendly NPCs?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Damien Arcuri

Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:33:00 +0000

My interest is mainly in faction standing mechanics, so if you're not interested you won't want to read this post :)

Originally by: CCP Ginger

Weeeell, you see, if you have say, -8 towards Amarr this pretty much means you have blown hundreds of their ships away. They dont like you, your pretty much in their top bad arse list of people they dont like. It doesnt make any sesne that they would let you dock at their stations but nethertheless! But, in principle a system that would let you, over a considered period of time, be able to regain dog eaten standings should be considered.

Originally by: CCP Ginger

I havent got any problems with not being able to fight for people that you have bad standings towards, simply because to get those bad standings you have had to blow ten tons of crap out of their ships, those poor crews, in space assets etc. So this is fine.

It's understandable for someone with a clear affinity toward faction conflict to take your position, but not everyone starts playing EVE with that kind of understanding of factions. Some people run missions early in their EVE career -- for isk or simply because it seems like the thing to do -- and don't appreciate or even realize that it might lock them out of pirate mission-running later.

Some have no problem with the consequences of slaughtering rats early in their EVE experience, but decide much later that they want to try something else... and can't.

See General Paul's posts in this thread: He's an ex-caldari mission runner (with horrible standings toward Guristas, Bloods, and Sanshas) residing in Venal. Even if his Blood or Sansha standings were better than -2.0 so he could run missions for them, I doubt it's practical for him, and it's certainly not practical for most players, to go into hostile 0.0 or switch alliances (if they even can) to use Blood or Sansha storylines to boost Gurista standing.

If I knew what I know now I would never have run combat missions or accepted storylines from anyone. Even mining missions risk lowering pirate faction standing because rats show up just about anywhere there's ore. Please consider the implications of what you're saying. Do miners choose their path by minimally defending themselves in their non-combat ships? Personally, I don't think so.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

The issue of changing sides, recovering deep negative standing etc is a more difficult one (and one that affects EVE as a whole, not just the FW area) and one we're still discussing. We're still big on actions having consequences, so don't expect it to ever become easy, but it may get a little easier.

Easy? I'd settle for "possible" so I know I won't rat my toons into a corner. With faction status harder to recover than sec status, how can EVE call itself a PVP-centric game when NPC combat/standing has more serious consequences than PVP combat? Like it or not, that makes PVP more casual and less serious a career commitment than PvE interaction.

There's more discussion here:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=654361&page=2

If I and everyone else offering changes in that thread are missing something, please let us know so we don't continue to waste our time campaigning for a fix to what seems to us to be a quite undesirable and arguably broken game mechanic.

Another point that concerns me: recovering sec status destroys faction standing with your choice of rat flavor. I don't think that's desirable either, because of how ridiculously hard it is (often impossible) to recover rat faction status. That's why I offered solutions based on a new diplomacy-type skill, or sharing of storyline faction standing boosts, rather than a PvE solution in the thread linked just below. I worry that PvE solutions are likely to lead to a negative-sum game where average standing across all factions declines over time.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Inora Sera

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:31:00 +0000

Haven't read everything, there's quite a lot now, but here's what i'd like to see regarding Factional Warfare and 0.0.

1. To be able to chose if you want to claim sovereignty for your alliance or your faction. Example of this could be that upon installing a POS at a moon in an unclaimed system, you get a selection window asking you if you want to claim this sytem as (for me) CVA or Amarr empire. (pirate factions being also a possibility)

2. Claiming a system for your faction, gives you the possibility of contracting major corporations within your faction (like Viziam, Amarr Navy) to build Stations into your 0.0 system for massive investments (50, 75 bil ?). Having stations in 0.0 would help civilize it and would enable something lots of 0.0 holders have whined about for a while, agents. Once the outpost is built, you get the chance to hire agents, with a growing fee for each lvl. 100mil for a L1 security agent, 250mil for a L2 R&D and going up.

3. Contracting a Navy station of your faction, would give you the chance of buying fleets of NPC navy ships to patrol your systems, meaning that your alliance is now a major holder of your faction. Those fleets would only attack if the stations are under threat or people with negative faction enter the system as in Empire space. Once destroyed, you have to buy another one.

4. Alliances not willing to align themselves with any faction can still do it, but get to rely on themselves as with the actual systems, after all liberty has it's price. Though i wouldn't be opposed to seeing unaligned mercenary corporations and stations being implemented so they don't get left behind totally disadvantaged against faction aligned alliances.

5. Faction aligned alliance cannot attack other alliance aligned with the same faction, this would give a lot more meaning to the incoherent ganking happening all the time in 0.0. Pirate aligned alliances and unaligned alliances still get to fight anyone they want, but at the expense of being safe in the Empires they plague. Choices vs Consequences.

That way you still get to keep the player ruled space, but you do it by using the game background empires, it's history, add meaning and more consequences on the choices you make IG. It most probably would need a lot of adjustements, but i do believe it would help a lot about the broken and mostly meaningless state of 0.0 warfare as it is right now...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:46:00 +0000

What about limiting Groups within empire via "special Riggs" u had to fit inside your ship, using it in warfare?

Connection slots, which limit the numbers of peoples inside gangs.
Riggs like this , could limit also the Quality of a fight. Which means Groups/ Fleets can fight each other wich have similar factions riggs like this.
So u can keep away peoples from killing "Empire faction warfare starters", include possible " Farmers".

A special ship for something like this, could be a " Fleetcommandship" which role is specialized in Empire faction warfare.(frigates/cruisers/Battleships/carriers-size)
The afford of playing in this increase with ships like this size, include the interest in doing it.

Will there be the "Rank and Medaille" play a role?

Like first to join u had to have a high faction standing.
U will get Missions,which increase the Rank of u within the Faction.
Upon your Rank u will get Medaills, which opens the Way for higher quality missions.
If U start farming this with your alts, and killing noobships "en masse", your Rank should be decreased , and u should be possible degraded.

Perhaps some ideas around this.

breg mac

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

EVE FAN since 2003

Wode, Wode, hale dinnen Rosse nu voder, nu Diestel un Dorn, Schter jar beter Korn!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nova Fox

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:43:00 +0000

The link in my signature please.

I think citizen should play a role in factional warfare.

How to make feel low sec feel like low sec

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Piratejoe

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:57:00 +0000

nullFactional Warfare for .1-.4 Space
Allow Fleets too be formed simular too the Alliance system.
A. Your race must belong too the faction fleet you wish too join, IE Ammar, Caldari ect.
B. When joining a Faction Fleet Alliance you are not allowed too board or pilot a non-factional ship.
C. Faction Fleet members are allowed too attack any negative security status pilot without consiquence or security loss in .1-.4 space.
D. Faction Fleet members can attack thier rival enemy race pilots regardless of security status anywere in .1-.4 space.

nullControl of .1-.4 space
A. Faction Fleet Alliances recieve a 50% discount on the POS faction point costs too anchor a POS in lowsec space.
B. Each lowsec system will recieve one HQ conquarable station.
C. Each lowsec system will recieve one conquarble outpost per security point. IE: .1 will get 1 while .4 systems will have 4 outposts.
D. Each Outpost can be sieged much like a regular POS and put into reinforced mode. However Outposts are not destoyed like regular POS but shut down. If a rival faction shuts down all of the outposts in a system 24 hours later they will sieze that system.
E. If a system is not conquared within 36 hours after a outpost has been shut down that outpost is restored.
F. Outposts can be "Claimed" by a Faction Fleet, Each Faction Fleet can claim 1 outpost per Empire control level of their Alliance CEO. Claiming a Outpost is simular too claiming a 0.0 outpost. Same Faction Fleets cannot sieze friendly outposts, however same faction fleets can sieze a friendly npc station. (This is done once so the various faction fleets can all claim their outposts, after that its pretty straight forward)

P.S: Please forgive my horrible spelling, I knew I shouldnt have fallen asleep in english class

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Alora Venoda

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:31:00 +0000

what if factional warfare was basically a PvE-driven way to fight for control of resources? the perfect way to do sov-warfare for carebears!

like, for example, the group that runs the most missions or mines the most ore within a set amount of time wins!

i know it goes against all the pew-pew stuff EVE is designed for... but LOTS of players out there would rather fight NPC's or shoot asteroids than other players, and they don't really like being the rock jocks for big alliances either since they feel more like employees or slaves that part of a team, and often still end up in fleet battles etc.

i think the main difficulty with adding in factional warfare "contested areas" would be finding where to add the new content without taking away facilities that are already being used by many players. it would seem much more reasonable to add all new systems, or new NPC stations, or deadspaces instead of converting any existing ones to factional warfare contested areas.

i do strongly feel that players should not have to join an NPC corp to participate in factional warfare, however.

Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.

Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by garfinkell

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:02:00 +0000

Originally by: FarScape III
Corporations do not have to be perfectly under the thumb of their original Factions anyways so seeing them in other space is fine.

If we have a the U.S. has a conflict with another country and that country has a McDonalds does that McDanalds get blown up? Not realy no, because it is mostly owned by the actual place it's in.

Most countries do not identigy them selves with comercial companies anyways. isk is isk.

Also lets just have lots of fun running around and having some of the border systems go back and forth in onership but then the corps in them are not efected because the corps are not factions, they are trying to make isk any way they can in who ever faction rules the system, I would not care, it more about the profit.

Well, kinda of look what happened in Serbia. A couple of people went crazy and attacked Mcdonalds for being a american company.
--------------------

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by garfinkell

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:28:00 +0000

Factional Warfare should be implemented in such a way that players can see what they do acutally cause something.

For example a player may get a mission to destroy a ship filled with ammo? by doing so the ships in that system are weaker allowing another player to get a mission that allows more damage to the system. In other words players shouldnt just be able to enter a system with a whole fleet and take the system easily. Their should be smaller missions that players can complete before hands like disabling turrets guarding --- gate for 24 hours which allowed a group of players to fly in and launch a direct attack on the system.

So pretty much i would like to see stations switch hands from faction to faction but it shouldnt be a huge battle and thats it. Players should be able to be doing smaller missions that lead to the taking over of the system. Also it should only be a certain amount of system that can be taken i.e border stations. The stations should offer low rent to corps and great mineral benifit to encourage players to fight for the systems so that their factionc an use it. Once abulation (walking around in stations) players maybe in cloak ships enter stations and cause problems? Also players should have a button to see their alliance information such as battles won, lost & outgoing. Players should be able to see if in a ongoing faction battle if more help is needed and pretty much get all faction news delivered to them. This can also allow a storyline to develop in the faction news. That's my 2 cents
--------------------

Join Vector Heavy Industries.
Located in Danera head to our office or contact me or Moon Spider

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CmdoColin

Mon, 10 Mar 2008 03:52:00 +0000

Not PvP lite, but what about having factional warfare as corp/alliance lite?

I can't commit the time any more to work with a 0.0 alliance - but would like to every so often to log in and get that "expirence".

If I can impact the universe of eve - that takes an MMOG to another level. That is what is so good about eve. Putting up a POS and claiming Sovereignty is truely epic... factional warfare should have this feel to it. Capturing stations in a no-mans land avoids the fact you have a Minmatar station in the core of Amarr space... Sure you have to take out listening posts and kill convoys along the way to unlock a station attack.

Danger is - Why do I need to be in an alliance? Well the rewards of an alliance in 0.0 should be better. This should be a stepping stone for the community to get there. Loss should be mitigated by LP... or sommat whatever. But that Empire hugging carebear (like me now) should at least get a taste of the epic beauty of 0.0 alliance freedom - and want more.
Audita et altera pars

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fayte Seraph

Sat, 8 Mar 2008 14:35:00 +0000

Make Ammatar space (Derelik), a FFA for minmatar vs amarr factions.

You can only access the region through either side.
if your minmatar from heim -> derelik. and so on for amarr.

that way anyone not in the factions will have to go through the bleak lands to get to amarr space.

derelik's a toilet bowl anyways, theres nothing there, pathetic region tbh, make it all low sec.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ma Zhiqiang

Tue, 4 Mar 2008 09:57:00 +0000

...

Example: If an alliance sign up with the Republic Fleet, events/missions of different sizes are seeded. Fleet encounters with Amarr task forces. Interception of slave transports. Recon missions in border lands. These messages are sent to alliance officers, and can either be contracted to alliance members, to avoid spies to easily get info on these events.

With ambulation, you can install bugs or hack other corporation's offices/transmissions. So in this case, an Amarr aligned corporation have a chance of getting pieces of transmitted missions/details. Either it be who's accepted the mission in that alliance/corp or where something is going to happen.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ma Zhiqiang

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 23:49:00 +0000

Edited by: Ma Zhiqiang on 03/03/2008 23:52:07
I haven't read through all pages, but something that hit me while watching a movie and thinking about this subject:

The factional areas should be much more noticable. You will have to pick a side. Every choice has benefits and disadvantages. Even as a "neutral"/npc corp player, you can join up with a npc corp. Not all corps are aligned with a certain faction, but could have different standings to the other factions. If you like to join the fight in faction's more combat oriented corporations, then you will have problems entering "hostile" space in a hauler.

Storylined missions could be created and depending on the development of how they come out, new events are happening: Stargates are closed. Stations/planets are destroyed/cut off.

When you enter another faction area, you will pass a security station/patrol. Your cargo will be scanned. Tradings passes can be bought. NPC/player corps can create passes/vouchers. Criminals can manufacture fake ones. This would make trading a whole lot more interesting...

Faction ships (or the more specialised ones, like Cynabal and Raven Navy Issue) can only be flown and ownned by pilots aligned with that faction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by FarScape III

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:30:00 +0000

Originally by: Brun Thorvald

Six, yeah, FW should affect docking at stations and such. At the moment, Empire Space is Empire Space, and it only matters to RPers whether they are in the Republic, the State or wherever.

Ok but how about ONLY the Military stations can not be docked at? And have the military Station have a good benifit to be wanted but not game destroying like EVERY corps station of that faction.
***

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by FarScape III

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:28:00 +0000

Corporations do not have to be perfectly under the thumb of their original Factions anyways so seeing them in other space is fine.

If we have a the U.S. has a conflict with another country and that country has a McDonalds does that McDanalds get blown up? Not realy no, because it is mostly owned by the actual place it's in.

Most countries do not identigy them selves with comercial companies anyways. isk is isk.

Also lets just have lots of fun running around and having some of the border systems go back and forth in onership but then the corps in them are not efected because the corps are not factions, they are trying to make isk any way they can in who ever faction rules the system, I would not care, it more about the profit.

***

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Brun Thorvald

Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:03:00 +0000

Be aware of what hasnt worked in other games.

First of all, be very very careful of the Bandwagon Effect in PvP, where winners keep playing and losers drop out. I would strongly suggest tweaking PvP rewards so the 'losing' side offers more and better reward than the winners are offered.

Secondly, allow areas to actually change control. You dont want an Empire to be wiped out, but have a certain set of systems change control from being, say, 0.2 Minimatar to 0.2 Amarr would be cool ... even if this means some Agents get to move.

Thirdly, dont be afraid to end a particular FW after time, or if it isnt working.

Fourth, start small. Dont have entire Empires at FW at the start, just have 2 corps going at each other in a particular constellation. See how it works and tweak.

Fifth, you have a problem in that Blob Warfare works. I'd personally suggest linked missions, where the 2 gangs enter a particular area and NPCs blow the crap out of anyone without the Magic ID Card each side got issued ("Your ships have been issued with transponder IDs to disable the automatics. I wouldnt recomment going to the system without these. You are in cruisers or smaller, right ? I wouldnt guarantee the new transponder ID would fool the automatics if you went in in a battleship').

Six, yeah, FW should affect docking at stations and such. At the moment, Empire Space is Empire Space, and it only matters to RPers whether they are in the Republic, the State or wherever.

Seventh, unfair fights are not fun, and if it's not fun, then people stop playing.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Felix Isatia

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:04:00 +0000

Just an idea...I poted this in a new topic before realising this one was here
The player could/will be Neutral to the NPC and Players in the "Army Corp" until they so choose to join. Depending onwhich fation they join will alter their standings with the other factions. The player CAN choose to leave the "Army Corp" perhaps at any time or after a given "Service period".
To prevent empires from completely wiping another out...Introdude varying levels of NPC fleet sizes and defences dpendant on how much territory has left. eg. As an empire pushes deeper into its opponents territory the Oppsing fleet will gain gradually larger NPC fleets and more defences...both A) because players are less likely to join a losing faction and B) this represents the empires putting more effort into efending their Inner worlds.
On the Other hand the winning faction will over time have reduced NPC activity. Meaning at some point the fleet will consist mostly of players...the more player join the army...the further the push will go....the bigger the payout.
BEFORE this starts a declaration of war must be signed! a recruitment period will commance where empires will attempt to rally people to their side before the fight begins (Players can join ANY time during the fighting) and then both factions will send NPC fleets out to engaged and push agaist the other. Players can join in this. The declaration will also state WHAT system is their taget AND wich systems the fleet will pass through...to help players Join and avoid the conflict.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nyabinghi

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:49:00 +0000

Don't know if this has been mentioned here yet but an obvious inclusion to Faction Wars has to be trade embargoes, and contraband between warring Factions. In fact as it stands now it makes no sense why Amarr would export goods to the benefit of Minmatar and vis-versa. Faction Wars will have to address this in order to have no gaps in logic.
***

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by the Entity

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:56:00 +0000

If any of this takes off,theres one thing for sure...

i get revenge on alot of you for making me read the walls of text!

I guess we'll see when it eventually gets here...
give a man a nut and he will survive a day...
give a man BALLZ and he will fight EVERY DAY!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Venkul Mul

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:52:00 +0000

Originally by: Dex Nederland
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The basic idea is good, but the area for expansion of empire in 0.0 should be a new area of space, not the already colonized 0.0 .

Players have spent time and resources to colonize the 0.0 that already exist. Changing it to empire would negate that work.

If instead new zones of 0.0 were added, with the statement from the start that probably (depending on the warfare results) they will become a NPC controlled region, no one that set base there could protest when the annexion to empire happens.

So what about those players who have worked hard to colonize existing 0.0 for an Empire (CVA being the big example)?

If the players are the ones working to push the Empires into null sec and they have to achieve a certain level of development and security before the area is added to the Empires, how is that different from the S. Coalition pushing BoB out of Delve?

If the 0.0 player warlords want to invade the non-Concord protected empire space and remove the empire from that space they can. Concord's authority isn't suppose to extend out there, but there is no reason the empires can't begin to push out there without the approval of Concord with the help of their Pod Pilot communities.

Simple, it is a bad idea because the activity of faction war would be at least partially directed and supported by the dev.

Any thing even remotely touched by a Dev that can result in changes or loss of control for zones of 0.0 will generate big problems.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dex Nederland

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Venkul Mul
The basic idea is good, but the area for expansion of empire in 0.0 should be a new area of space, not the already colonized 0.0 .

Players have spent time and resources to colonize the 0.0 that already exist. Changing it to empire would negate that work.

If instead new zones of 0.0 were added, with the statement from the start that probably (depending on the warfare results) they will become a NPC controlled region, no one that set base there could protest when the annexion to empire happens.

So what about those players who have worked hard to colonize existing 0.0 for an Empire (CVA being the big example)?

If the players are the ones working to push the Empires into null sec and they have to achieve a certain level of development and security before the area is added to the Empires, how is that different from the S. Coalition pushing BoB out of Delve?

If the 0.0 player warlords want to invade the non-Concord protected empire space and remove the empire from that space they can. Concord's authority isn't suppose to extend out there, but there is no reason the empires can't begin to push out there without the approval of Concord with the help of their Pod Pilot communities.

Unless a LDIS Press Release is made, the views of its

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Venkul Mul

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:24:00 +0000

Originally by: TordenSkiold
Factional Warfare may therefore also be used as a part of expanding hi-sec into low-sec, and expanding low-sec into 0.0.

And of course 0.0 must also grow into new regions.

Factional warfare need to have a purpose, a goal, a reason behind it. Otherwise it'll be to much like current mission running: you do it for ISK, items/bonuses, standings etc., not so much because it is fun . . . so it's kinda like working, and not so much like playing

-.. - .... .-.

The basic idea is good, but the area for expansion of empire in 0.0 should be a new area of space, not the already colonized 0.0 .

Players have spent time and resources to colonize the 0.0 that already exist. Changing it to empire would negate that work.

If instead new zones of 0.0 were added, with the statement from the start that probably (depending on the warfare results) they will become a NPC controlled region, no one that set base there could protest when the annexion to empire happens.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dranoel

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:42:00 +0000

Edited by: Dranoel on 23/02/2008 15:43:09
If I remember correctly, CONCORD derives their power from the Yulai Convention. The Yulai Convention will have to be nullified for the war to begin. Does this not legally mean the end of CONCORD?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Aeo IV

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:47:00 +0000

The only thing I have to say is; if there is factional warfare, we need a good reason for it, like the Eve gate reopening or such.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by BlondieBC

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:48:00 +0000

I would like to see faction t2 items in the lp stores. They should be useable only by toons with high enough faction standings. (i.e. caldari navy t2 cruise missle launcher requires a 5.0 caldari faction standings.)

I would also like to see a fleet issue version of all ships both t1 and t2. These should only be useable by people with high enough factions standings.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ma Zhiqiang

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:13:00 +0000

Originally by: Eshud Uktar
My thoughts about Faction Wars are that it can't be made lightly.

I second these thoughts made by Eshud Uktar on page 11...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Daallie

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:01:00 +0000

Well the whole idea that it can be turned off is really really really dumb it should effect everyone. Now race should not determine this but loyalty so who you are running missions with and who you are fighting against effects everyone. If you end up with low amarr standing you will be shot by the amarr in amarr space, not be able to dock at their stations, but then this brings an issue of rewards from helping out someone. So this means tag drops or something else to indicate the action against a faction can be turned into Faction Navys for isk, LP, ships just something to make it a worth while venture to fight for a specific side.

This would also mean that the Faction ships would be balanced. No more getting my Pirate Alt perma jammed because I was stupid and undocked in 0.5 in a ship all of a sudden I could actually fight back YAY!!!!

Also makes the whole origingal story line of the faction wars and creation of Concord something worth while. Also QUESTION: what would we do about Concord. With all the factions going to war Concord seems silly all of a sudden. I have no ideas on it yet just saw it as an interesting issue.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gogela

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:00:00 +0000

Im really excited about the prospect of Factional Warfare but Ive noticed a couple of comments here that compels me to throw in my own two isk as well.

The fact that there are empires that have allowed others to set up stations in their space is a serious technical problem I can certainly understand that. My concern is that anything short of relocating those stations to a more appropriate location will take away from the game experience. The question is, is this technical hurdle worth improving the end experience of EvE. I certainly think it is. If that means another delay so be it better than warping around and seeing a blatant work-around every day. 1500 station relocations may inconvenience a lot of players for a few days and the devs for god knows how many but wont it be better when everything is making good sense? Wont that also free up the devs possibilities for future improvements and content not to mention a coherent storyline thats supposed to evolve? Maybe the great empires dissolve their council and claim all stations in their space as their own. There has to be an answer here beyond a wonky patch that causes more long term limitations.

I also liked the post suggesting low sec boarders between empires. It makes sense (read: lack thereof seems illogical). The strongest counterargument Ive read seems to be the dangers that might pose to new players. I would argue each empire has a LOT of space. Plenty to get some decent frig or cruiser skills that will get you through low sec (most of the time). Remember when you were starting out in EvE remember how suicidal going into low sec seemed? What if it was just two or three jumps you had to make to get into that greener grass on the other side of the fence? Its good motivation to explore EvE and take that first leap! I think the new players will like that little edge to empire travel. It may also help take the load off of Jita, as new players will find another station to congregate around. I know when I first started out I lived in Jita just because it seemed like thats where the players were! If I had to run an ibis through lowsec it might have been another story. Remember: new players buy stuff too, and they will buy things in their own space if someone is there to sell it to them.

On a final note, I think there is tremendous opportunity for CCP if they take the brilliant infrastructure theyve built w/ EvE and started campaigns in a story with depth that constantly evolves and sweeps up individual players into the story more intimately. For instance, missions even storyline missions with 5 parts, are pretty two dimensional. How hard would it be to write a storyline mission through factional warfare that had 17 parts or more? Im thinking like the Freelancer campaign it would be fun and exciting like a game within a game. As you add missions of this type you would be adding content that takes a long time to complete and engrosses the individual in his own little adventure. After a few years of adding more and more of these types of missions, you will be hooking players for the long term because people will be subscribing to a game that is constantly providing more games. It could never get old! In that way CCP and EvE would become something of a game distribution network rather than just a game that is always patching.

Dont get me wrong Im already hooked. Love the game btw :D. I just thought Id drop a few thoughts cuz why not?

------------------------------------

"A hungry man will tell you anything if you give him a cookie."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cragen o'mass

Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:17:00 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

this is my idea for factional warfare.

You basically chose to purchase a privateers license from you races government. Now by doing this you become flagged to the opposing races enlisted privateers (like a war target) your reward for this is the loot from their destroyed ships, LP from chosen faction also 50% of market value of ships destroyed in hard isk.

Now why under the banner of privateer you can not dock at stations belonging to the opposing faction. Depending on faction standings maybe not enter certain systems dependant on sec status. Participants could be asked to only work in certain areas of space (constellations) including home space or enemy territories. By doing this you will ensure that Privateers from both factions will be present at all times forming some kind of war zone. How ever faction warfare wouldnt be inclusive of this area i.e if you see a target on the way you can still shot it.

To stop signing up then dropping contract a 24 hour timer would be in place, similar to War Dec timer. Also maybe add a faction penalty when leaving.

Privateer license price could be negotiable depending on your faction standings.

Sry for my poor writing skills but I have a head ache and English isnt my strongest point.

---------------------------------------

I Think everyone @ tiscali plays WoW

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jmanis Catharg

Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Ademaro Imre
What might this do to standings for mission running? I am Caldari and if I participate in the FW - my minmatar standings will get tanked, so what happened when I try to transport stuff to a low sec system I need for access to 0.0 with my corp/alliance? Suppose I fight for Minmatar, then does my level 4 caldari agent standings get screwed? If I would want to participate, I either lose my level 4 agents, ot never go to our corp's "base" in a low sec system without a large gang.

Pshaw,, sorry for picking you as my unfortunate victim here, but I *really* hate this "But my standings will go down" attitude when addressing killing other faction ships.

Consider this: As a mission runner for caldari/minmataar (who dislike each other), you've killed tens of thousands of their people, and you expect them to like you?

This:

Quote:
Opposing Faction navies will take a sudden dislike to you fighting for their enemies. The pansies who currently take you on will most likely get fired and replaced with people who know how to shoot.

Is what I've been waiting for. Long live the caldari, burn Gallente pigdogs!

Now, slightly more on-topic to the issue at hand, it's kindof a shame that this is centered around low-sec. I like that low sec is part of it, but I feel hi sec should be a better part. The reactions I get from young nooblets when I'm double-teaming customs guards at hi sec gates with my remote-repping alt and my combat main just passing through busy hi sec systems saying "Wow man, that's really cool, you're taking on the cops", even though there's nothing special about the feat, would be really cool for retaining newcomers, and give them something worth playing towards. The further they progress the missions, the closer they get to popping those ships.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ademaro Imre

Thu, 7 Feb 2008 02:25:00 +0000

What might this do to standings for mission running? I am Caldari and if I participate in the FW - my minmatar standings will get tanked, so what happened when I try to transport stuff to a low sec system I need for access to 0.0 with my corp/alliance? Suppose I fight for Minmatar, then does my level 4 caldari agent standings get screwed? If I would want to participate, I either lose my level 4 agents, ot never go to our corp's "base" in a low sec system without a large gang.

The aim of politics is to keep the populace alarmed and clamorous to be saved by menacing it with imaginary hobgoblins. The urge to save humanity is a false front for the urge to rule it.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Eade Amtyre

Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:39:00 +0000

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but wouldnt it solve a lot of problems if factional warfare took place somewhere else?

I know this is not ideal, but what if either a number of wormholes are found in empire.. or new stargates setup.. which lead directly from empire space to a new region(s)? Perhaps these regions are not even based around solar systems as other regions are but instead around strange phenomena in deep space.

The new territory is valuable to the empire races for some reason and they immediately claim it and thus warfare in those regions, at least, breaks out.
Each faction controls and patrols the systems around its access point.

The new space is essentially 0.0 except that you cannot attack people of your own declared faction and it cannot be conquered by alliances. Even the pirates could join in later with their own gate/wormhole from their region of space..

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Siri Blue

Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:01:00 +0000

The first 2 posts by Eshud Uktar on page 11 pretty much hit the spot. Thats the way I imagine factional warfare!

Re-Introduce Non-ISK-Mission rewards, please.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Yon Andon

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:13:00 +0000

The already is a player run "realm vs. realm" type of thing in eve although it's not nearly as active as it should be it has great potential, the pirates vs. pirate-hunter fight. How about making FW only about that?

Say the pirate factions decide to invade low-sec empire and set up a few stations there (appear at first startup after FW expansion). Those with standings with those pirate factions and those with a decently negative sec status can get pvp-missions from an agent there. Others get pvp-missions from special concord agents in an empire low-sec station
Heres a simple example:
Pirate A goes to Serpentis station and gets a mission with a description something like this
Pirate Agent: "Our sensors have picked up an area of interest for our conquest of this system. It's in deadspace but one of our technicians is working on an acceleration gate that can bring you to it. We've managed to make one access card for it for you to use so be ready to activate the gate when our technician has configured it to take you to the area"

The pirate-hunter gets a similar quest but with a Federation Navy Technician instead of Serpentis obviously and get also a key to access a gate.
The gate's only for a specific ship size depending on lvl of agent and the key is consumed upon activation.

When two players of opposing faction with such a mission of same level arrive at their gate both technicians will be ready and the players can warp and shoot it out. Who fights who is decided at the gates not when you accept the mission to minimize wait time. Both get a minimal reward for taking on the fight for their faction but only the winner gets a nice bonus reward.

I know this is as close as you can get to being instanced and maybe what you call pvp-lite but when pvp action in low sec is a little as it is now perhaps some basic assumptions about game design should be revisited?

Higher lvl mission would be more group oriented and a lvl 4 one might be that two corps of opposing factions need to put up a POS in the system, defend it and take out the other corps POS? Could last two weeks or so. Get bonus for putting it up, having it still there after two weeks and biggest bonus for destroying the other one.

Anyway this is becoming a rant you see the point i'm making :) so anything that gets ppl into low-sec shooting at one another is a good thing :)

my 2 isk, thx

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Naomi dupont

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:18:00 +0000

How about an Intaki faction, or somehow make a FW branch pointing towards the posability of creating a Intaki Faction, it could be done, and maybe the faction will crumble and turn to dust cause lack of support, or prosper because of increased interest from the dwelling intaki's out there.

I remember i heard something about "npcs" shouting in local at some system and then, beeing blown up by concord or someone, but i could imagine if just once in a while these 'outbreaks' from the normal local standard rutine were implemented more often, and chained together, maybe linked from system to system.

Imagine a coupple of npc terrorists, or refugees from one faction, trying to escape into some borderzone, and the local faction npc general shouting, (stop in the name of the emperor, someone stop them, 50 mill to the one who brings their heads, and then the pod pilots could try out the hunt, if they had the right standing, and started to talk to the Concord general, that suddenly turned agent.
It could allso be linked together so the oposite faction suddenly shouted out a mission 'to resque the refugees'as a counter FW mission.
then we would have a lot of pvp/npc going at the same time, with story line involved.
I think my point is, try to make something that can involve players that were not even seeking FW, but suddenly their system is in a blaze of great pew pew and glory, ships blowing up, and with concord like fleets mixed with pvp pilots and the lot, but offcause making it a pod pilots choice to delve into the fun/risk.
Making the FW part alot "random" like, so its not just a new great complex thing, where someone allways blocks the gate with cap ships,(low sec FW) and exploiting the reset funktion again and again.
STATIC VS SPORADIC

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Enough Fiber

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:25:00 +0000

Edited by: Enough Fiber on 28/01/2008 11:26:32
The game design team must have a.d.d. as they have already started to think up ways to mess with the carebear via asteroid belts. Please design and release factional warfare before working on the belts.

There should be enough banter about release of factional warfare, but sure you don't need the carebears with pitchfork running throughout jita/rens stations screaming "only you can prevent forrest fires."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CetusOfAsuran

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:57:00 +0000

hmm this seems interesting and many diverse ways around it, as mentioned there has to be a definite goal set out start with a faction chat channel and a faction "agent" available for chat in EVERY faction station where you can get that factions current goal which my be "conquer jita" obviously you cant have every player signed up to FW on the same missions as one goal would create all out 10000+ ship warfare so make certain goals only available to your earned rank. Rank increases from private through to admiral depending on your kill/loss ratio and goal achievements. This would mean you could go hunting opposing faction players at a risk whenever you feel.
this creates the problem of players not signed up for FW simple really if a player isnt signed up to FW that player remains protected by the faction navy and CONCORD and any FW player who kills a non-FW player takes a rank loss for killing a "civilian".

as for the station "ive got low standings with that faction blah blah" why? if you have got a low standing with your "parent" faction you have defected to the other faction so sign up for their navy instead - keep all factions open to all races not just caldari navy for caldari etc if a player wants to defect to another races navy so be it thats war!!! at the expense of being blocked from the opposing factions stations, choose your side carefully.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Teyrala

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:33:00 +0000

I will start by mentioning that I am completely uninterested in FW, and I know many people will think the same, so we need some way to avoid it, just as if you want avoid lagfest blobs, don't go to 0.0, and there is a need to avoid FW for people who don't want it, otherwise it will just ruin the game for them and they will stop playing, which means lost subscriptions of course.
So, these are the ideas:
1. If systems/stations can be taken over, these should be limited to 0.4-0.1 so as to avoid any one empire being completely destroyed (after all, everyone hates amarr, I wouldn't imagine they would last long)
2. Players should choose to be associated with FW. Also, corps/alliances should also be able to as well (roleplay corps/alliances)
3. FW should work like wardecs in that it allows pvp to occur in highsec between participants, but in highsec it should not be possible to take over systems.
4. No capitals in highsec, people would just exploit that to get highsec capitals to then use for other uses
5. Denying docking rights - people not associated with FW should not be denied docking
6. NPC FW corp - as well as joining FW as a individual/corp/alliance, perhaps people should be able to join the NPC navy corps, which are part of FW.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fleshen

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:11:00 +0000

I was thinking:
I dont pvp that much or not at all but I do want to PVP but cant afford it.
So i had an idea. Maby if you paid your faction some ISK and theyll supply you with a amount of pree fitted pvp ship packages fitted with lets say t2 stuff only or t2 stuff as far as your skill goes. This I think would really boost interest in PVP since people wouldnt be afraid of going to PVP. I really have more to say about this idea but Ill just leave it at this and hope it seeds someones imagination.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TordenSkiold

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:55:00 +0000

I think Ginger pretty much listed it well at War is Devine.

However, as the number of Eve players constantly grow, Empire is getting a bit over-crowded. Indeed Eve itself is showing symptoms of it.

Factional Warfare may therefore also be used as a part of expanding hi-sec into low-sec, and expanding low-sec into 0.0.

And of course 0.0 must also grow into new regions.

Factional warfare need to have a purpose, a goal, a reason behind it. Otherwise it'll be to much like current mission running: you do it for ISK, items/bonuses, standings etc., not so much because it is fun . . . so it's kinda like working, and not so much like playing

-.. - .... .-.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by General Paul

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:13:00 +0000

I currently have a -9.97 standing to guristas.. I aslo live in Guristas space (Venal)

I have a large number of ships and all of my possesions in a guristas station.

So lets see.. if I cannot dock at guristas stations what happens to all of my things.,

There are no other factions to dock at for maybe 20 jumps of 0.0

My alliance holds together in the surrounding systems to me and wont come 20-30 jumps to a faction that likes me.. allowig people to take aprt in factional warfare and completely destroying someones game is two seperate things.

So for anyone who says it is a simple mechanic think again.
The fact that I have been living peacefully with the guristas for 4-5 months should really have mitigated their hatred of me but it hasnt.

If this none docking idea is to go ahead though id like alittle warning to start moving my ships and equipment to somewhere else

Allowing me to choose my factional allegiance based on where I have lived for the lst 5 months would be a big plus though..

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by xergher

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:05:00 +0000

Sorry if this has been suggested already, but it seems to me that there's an easier way to look at this as regards docking with xyz faction stations; if the standing with a particular empire in empire space falls below a certain value then you can no longer dock at that station, regardless of which part of empire you're in. If the station is one you have too low a standing with, you cannot dock, regardless of where it is, because quite simply, you'll be told you're not welcome.

For example, in real life there are embassies dotted around the world, if someone with high standing with that nationality goes there, they will be more welcome, even though perhaps, the empire (or in this case country) may declare you illegal/criminal. Naturally real life isn't that simple and agreements are made etc. but as far as EVE is concerned, it could at least initially operate on a simple basis until an improved method is decided, or even required.

So if you are for example Amarr and you try to dock with a Minmatar station in the Amarr empire space, you will be refused, however if you are in Minmatar space and you try the same thing but with an Amarr station, you will be permitted. Would make a lot of sense really that your best standing faction, regardless of location, would allow your docking, even though you may be in "enemy territory".

As far as Concord is concerned I don't think their duties would change overly, they would prevent attacks on faction ships within the faction empire space. For example, a Caldari miner is mining in Caldari empire space and a Gallente pilot attacks, Concord would chase off (or destroy) the aggressor. If Caldari to Caldari, same again just as Concord do now. Exception being, if a Caldari pilot attacks a Gallente pilot within Caldari space, Concord will act exactly as they do for Corporation wars, they'll sit there and see who wins.

The dynamics of this would be rather complex, but would see this as a foundation; pity though that the faction traits are such that Caldari don't have mining vessels (check the skill requirements for developing Exhumers, they're all Gallente Starship Engineering) and so on.

Think for the most part this would work.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Argy

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:25:00 +0000

Edited by: Argy on 22/01/2008 03:30:15
in terms of keeping PvP optional for miners, traders, etc., ther should be a way to declare yourself neutral, or non-combatant. I dont think that, if you are not a combatant, you should just be able to fly around everywhere if you are associated with a faction (which everyone is). People should have to delcare themselves neutral to travel accross borders between factions, or at least traveled unarmed. if someone is trading between factions, or hauling anything, they should need a license, unless there's an embargo, but that gets to complicated. I think people or more likeley corporations, in empire space, should have to declare themselves civilian/private or empire navy, and that would dictate if they can or cannot travel in other empire space, but can still enlist or unenlist at any/certain times.

i think people need more than LP as reward to fly for empire navies. they will need isk just to fight, and why spend their time making no profit. There should be a lot of LP and a simple ranking system with a monetary reward for killing enemy pilots, and there should be high LP low isk, hauling and mining missions. however, beyond objectives like "take [random 0.1-0.4] boarder system" where one would fight empire rats and any players who are in that system. I think simultaneous small gang orginization is too complicated. the real fighting shouldnt be mission based however...spontaneus fights in low sec empire among small gangs seems lie a good constant

however a overall, dev controlled plan of war that has objectives for player run, empire navy-enlisted corps/alliances, like "defend/take this system" or trading objectives. this would recreate the dynamic of fleet war and small skirmishes in 0.0 space if there was an enemy corp that was assigned to the same system. these objectives could last really forever, and 0.1-0.4 sec systems could eve be unaffiliated with empires, and just let player corps battle in them forever.

i think massive amounts of LP shouldnt merrit ship blueprints, but ships, so veterans of FW can be seen flying cool faction ships, maybe even tech 2

ALSO

enlistment should be rewarded with LP or equipment or ship BP but this could easily be scammed so how would scamming of enlistment bonus be combatted?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dex Nederland

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:11:00 +0000

Edited by: Dex Nederland on 21/01/2008 18:11:55
There has been a lot of discussion about the negative effects, but I have not seen any discussion about the rewards for fighting for a faction. These are important as actions should have consequences, but actions should also have rewards.

What does the pilot get when he signs up to fly under a national flag? What about a corporation and its members?

I think there was some talk of getting faction issued equipment as a reward/LP, but is the faction standing going to go up as well? If so what rewards will go with having a high (6+) faction standing beyond access to L4 agents?

Some ideas relating to faction standing:
- Corps with significantly high faction standing can mine moons in that faction's high security territory.
- Individuals/Corps with high faction standing can bring Capital Ships into some of the lower security (<8.0) high sec systems.
- Faction cyno modules (worth a ton, only usable by those participating in factional warfare), in order to bring capitals into some of the lower security high sec systems of your enemy.

*****
Changing gears
*****

On the issue of withdrawing docking rights from the enemy (those with low standing towards the owning faction), these should persist, even if you leave factional warfare. But the other problem is that those wanting to work for groups like Guristas need to be able to work for them sooner ;).

Something needs to be developed for those fighting in factional warfare if they are unable to dock in enemy stations - forward operating bases and firebases that they can setup in enemy territory as a place to store ammo, replacement ships & modules.

Think player created exploration site that is less than a POS, but not something the lone scout or even battleship wants to attack. The FOB would require a squadron of battleships with supporting vessels to take down in a fair amount of time. Stationary, lower HP, carriers with automated defenses instead of drone bays.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kerchingo

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:27:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Tharrn
If you want to make it the awesome version then please, please, please make it so that someone who has ****ed off a faction enough can no longer dock at their stations. Nothing turns me off as much as supposed enemies of Amarr being based out of the Emperor Family Station in Amarr...

This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.

If this cant be implemented the whole concept of factional warfare topples

The design of the EVE universe as it currently stands is too rigid for this concept to succeed in an immersive and logical way so my vote goes to to 'leave it alone' and let the players drive the creation of 'eve history' instead.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by xXxSatsujinxXx

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:03:00 +0000

All of a sudden all the work i've put into my first year has been worth it - grinding out missions with all 4 factions to the point where i can run lvl4s with each of them... so i guess i won't be denied docking anywhere.. _

a few of my friends on the other hand, will suffer greatly from this - which makes this idea even sweeter! _

can't wait to see this implemented...

(ps please increase the arazu bonus - sorry i had to sneak it in there... _)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by General Paul

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:34:00 +0000

Ive been living in Guristas space now for months and lack the faction standing to mission for them due to starting out as a caldari mission *****.

If factionaly warfare greatly effected faction standing to the point where attacking gallente/caldari would give me + standings to guristas I think this is a positive way to fix a missing aspect of the game.

A possible problem with fleet warfare on a factional scale (empires going to war) is that NPC's cheat.

So if you in your 300 strong caldari fleet engage a 300 strong gallente fleet for example the 20 or so Target jamming ships in the caldari fleet maya s well go home.

Also if you are making systems capable expect the caldari homworld and most of gallente space to dissapear very quickly as the legion of SWA faithful charge to reclaim there homeworld.

Im not saying thats a bad idea as I remember wanting to do it as an SWA member but its hardly conducive to good gameplay when all the gallente empire space is crammed into 1 or two defended systems.

Maybe a beter way of doing this would be to put swathes of low sec space in between empires and have border wars there (with a single 0.5 pipe connecting the empires)

This would not affect empire traders adn would allow for impressive fleets to be displayed at the gates to empires (think a NPC titan and full support fleet)

Just my two isks.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Drethon

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:59:00 +0000

It seems to me that the greatest danger of faction warfare is shredding existing multiracial corps if participation is at the corporate level. It seems like corporations could exist with members on both sides of the war because they have independent goals in common.

"I may not believe in what you believe in but I will fight to the death to protect your right to believe."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Empire Trucker

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:14:00 +0000

Give all accounts a 4th "Faction war" character. This character is part of a NPC alliance and NPC corp.
NPC alliances are at war with each other. Standard rules
Players may train their War characters concurrently with any other on the account
War characters may not ever leave the NPC alliance, they may join other player made corps within this alliance. War corps made within this alliance may never leave it, they may only dissolve.
The faction alliances have standings increased with faction corps, and decreased with hostile faction corps.
Isk is generated in all normal means (ratting, missioning, etc)
War players gain LP depending on their contribution to objectives, based on damage done on killmails with added bonuses to e-war.
LP can be exchanged for goods of the T1 and T2 level

Territory is conquered by different rules. LP buys Battlestations, which are placed by a corp on behalf of the alliance around planets and claim SOV for the faction. The territory being fought over is a special X-sec, here no one may anchor POS. This X-Sec region would have several conquerable stations to fight over.

Battlestations come in various sizes and prices and are destroyable. It is advisable that people do not keep valuables inside them. People logging in from a destroyed battlestation appear 1 AU out in a random direction in whatever ship they had logged out in. The launching corps control some aspects of the battlestation, including fees, but not docking rights, which are set by the NPC alliance. Battlestations come with a medbay and repairshop. All other services are reserved for stations, this includes a market. Destruction of a battlestation resets all clones to their corp's HQ.

Pre-skilled characters. For an isk or real money fee, Faction War characters can be created with different skills trained. They are modeled after the soldier and special forces paths. For example, an advanced soldier may come pre-trained for battlecruisers, where a special forces may be trained for T2 frigates.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rigo Kajjar

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:41:00 +0000

I wouldn't agree to "fw wars should be like corp wars" as mentioned in the posts above. I think FW wars should work more like can flagging, because: empire wars produce a lot of attrition and average players can't stand it for longer time (just look at all the attempts to dodge wars). If players, and specially non-hardcore-pvpers, shall participate permanently in FW, they need some way to still make cash in their own faction high sec space. Low sec would be fair game ofc.

In my opinion, factional wars should therefore be asymmetric, in a sense that being in your "home" faction space should be saver (but ofc less profitable) than raiding the opponent faction space.

In order to achieve that, people should get flagged in the other faction high sec space, like can thieves, etc. This would result in the fact that eg Amarr people could still make cash in Amarr high sec to finance their FW-pvp. But if they wanted, they could still shoot up a passing-by Minmatar FW, if they accept that the Minnie will shoot them back. But if the Amarr just looks the other way, he would be safe (in Amarr high sec space only).

Getting people in the other factions high sec space could simply be done with agent missions. Eg Minmatar agent: "we freeed some slaves from the amarr, bring them to our space".

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Daedra Blue

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:44:00 +0000

Edited by: Daedra Blue on 09/01/2008 16:50:28
Edited by: Daedra Blue on 09/01/2008 16:47:22
Continued.
Whyle u are out fo the conflict zone u can do missions for the other faction to improve your standing until u reached a certain standing from witch u can swap ur allegiance.But whyle u begin gaining in the battle u lose what u had with the other one.
This also kinda creates a new scope for a corp besides mining industrial and pvp u can be a supplier as in corp fighting in the war and supplying the outside market with faction supplies and as they conques space they gain more profit as they require less lp to purchase the supplies and having a good wish to maintain it as theyre proffits will decline when they lose grounds.And the other factions will want territory to have theyre own stuff cheaper.

U can also have a sort of a bonus as in u can join your race's faction right away whyle the rest have to first improve standing first then they can join making race actually count in the decision and also making it more real and more likeley that race specific pilots join theyre race specific factions as a majority and not all rush to 1 faction making it permanently superior ofc there will be ballance issues in the ammount of how much u need to have and so on and so forth and some patterns actually be race specific so there is the need for differentiation as in gallente joins gallente to get gallente factions ships but ammar join amar to get amar faction ships and so on.

Also missions can get outter conflict zone implication as to supply theyre faction with something u need to get from X system outsyde the confict zone in the EvE unvierse leaving people with transport ships to travel trough low sec and face the allready existant threat to get supplyes back trough the wormhole for theyre faction thus increasing NPC support maybe.Keeping a steady flow of stuff ammo etc also normal supplyes from empire ships and stuff.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Daedra Blue

Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:32:00 +0000

Edited by: Daedra Blue on 09/01/2008 16:40:32
Edited by: Daedra Blue on 09/01/2008 16:35:34
I have to agree with AlleyKat Factional Warfare can not be implemented into the existing universe without turning it upside down because of so many contradictory points.
-War is WAR it affects everyone if it doesent it's not War you are not asked to participate in it u are being killed without your consent by your enemyes wherever you are caught.War means shoot first ask later.If u really want to change the dynamism of the EvE universe then think about the sec status. The actual system status like low sec high sec they have been the same for ages in a PROPER FW the people that fight in a system and win will increase that systems status for they're faction thus gaining security in the system they didnt have cutting other factions trade routes and creating more for others making the eve univers Completley Dynamic asside from a predetermined perimeter the empire cannot be fully conqured leaving room for full retaliation.This is Proper Faction Warfare it affects everyone wether u like it or not if u sit around and do nothing u'll end up kicked out of the station.
So u see the implication any scaled down versions would not really match to the actual thing and would only represent minor changes. FW in itself means a player driven empire wide conflict.
Most are not ready to face such a drastic change.

But i disagree about a new server not everyone is ready to throw away years of skill development and start allover again and i assume the whole EvE idea is to put all people in the SAME universe and not do a WoW style split with different realm types.

Thus and i think it is time to say it.And here i become a more RP player.

EvE Online - Reunion
Finaly after so many years the most unbelivable technological breaktrough. After many years of research on the wormholes that stranded these civilisations on the other end of the unvierse a major technological breacktrough has been made the first artificial wormholes are being created as we speak in the hopes of reuniting with the motherland. All 4 Empires create a wormhole connecting the current EvE unvierse with the homeworld from 4 different corners of the galaxy finding they're old civilisations in ruins and completley empty as if they've been killed by something. Infuriated by preconceptions and confuzed by the discoveries the 4 empires call out in the eve unvierse for pilots to join they're cause as the unleash a war to Conquer the Entyre Motherland for themselfs.As the war unleashes the EvE universe remains the same as the Empires need eachother to Sustain the Economy but the war waighed far away is influencing the current EvE universe more and more as new technologies are being discovered and brought back from the ruins of the homeland though some strange artifacts unlikeley belonging to any of the 4 races are founds its still a mistery of how they got there.
-New Systems
-Neutral starting systems
-New Exploration zones to find old forgoten technologies
-Mysterious artefacts from and unknown source
-New Faction Ships obtanable only from the specific areas
-The More Teritory the Faction Controls the lower the prices on technology
-Unique special alliance wide missions that write history by finding and reserving a certain pattern of technology to be only available for theyre faction.

This is just a raw idea scribbled with the best in preserving what is and inovation also leaves room for a follow up (maybe a fifth alien race that extinguished our homeworld now threatening the EvE universe and a new front where all 4 empires cooperate against the common threat as a alternative for fighting eachother).

EDIT: Extra ideas
Oviously anyone can coem and choose whatever faction they want aside there can be no neutrality there as u can only enter trough the wormhole of your faction and if u are not with any u cant enter this.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kruel

Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:35:00 +0000

My ideas (trying to keep it as simple as possible):

Corp/Alliance declares a faction, no noob corpers, 1 week to switch factions

Opposing faction members can be killed anywhere without concord or sentry intervention

FW members drop a tag valued depending on what type of ship they were in

FW store takes LP (which is gained for every FW kill) and sometimes other things (like tags)

Certain types of stations can "change hands" based on # of kills in the system or constellation (NPC kills included but to a lesser effect, keeping the focus on pvp, but allowing a station to change hands if there's no one to shoost)

Opposing faction members can dock in enemy stations, but are taxed higher and will have to deal with faction NPCs outside the station in addition to likely pvp encounters

Players "stuck" in a station after it changes hands can pay a fee to "jump" to a friendly station (fee depending on distance) <-- I'm iffy on this one, but lets face it, it sucks to get permacamped in a station

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by DasNara Aethelwulf

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 04:15:00 +0000

I hope you guys in CCP are still reading this. First, Faction warfare is a GREAT idea. We need a war. It's a chance for the industrialist to do things like gun running and the like. Also, hopefully, comodities like the consumer goods will go up in places so we can make some real money with those useless items. But I have a couple of thoughts that I would like to guys to think about. Armed Merchantmen. I've been reading about the cargo ships in WWI and II that would bascially go out and hunt cargo ships, hopefully this will be an option. You go to a agent in your races faction and sign up, they give you one of these and tell you to go out and destroy every Amarrian merchant ship you see. That would be great. The other idea is let us sign up with our agents as privateers. Give us the otion with a module that alows us to board the ship in combat and "take her a prize". Once captured you can command the ship to go to the nearest friendly port where you could sell the ship and it's items for a bounty or just keep it to use as another privateer...what do you think?? I really want the possiblity to capture ships to sell them.

My left is in retreat, my center is giving way; situation excellent, I attack - Joffe 1916

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Deviant Desire

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:25:00 +0000

So when do we play ? Oh and just a thought add in the 'pirate' factions since obviously they are intended as such ;-) Thank you very much *grins ebily

It will be centered around low security space, but not exclusively. (No this should be universal thank you ;-) why wiggle the worm when I can catch the fish ?) Thank you very much ;-)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rigo Kajjar

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 22:50:00 +0000

Edited by: Rigo Kajjar on 29/12/2007 22:50:42
In order to avoid people basing in their opponent faction space, make office renting require minimum corp standing to faction. Standing requirement wouldn't need to be high, just enough to lock FWer of the opposing faction out, eg 1.0 faction standing would enable your corp to rent an office in a high sec system of your faction; all neutral corps need to stay in 0.5-0.6, all enemy corps would need to goto low sec with their offices.

In addition, make NPC fees, from office rent, market tax, clone fee, refining, lab costs all heavily dependent on standing. This is another incentive for people to base in "their" space, as living for them is cheaper there. In addition, this pulls in industrialists to FW, as good standings would reduce their costs while their opponents would have to pay higher prices. It means also that FW industrialists could compete better with non-FW players, another incentive to join FW. However, the fee would need to be feelable, eg the current market tax would go from 1%->0% for FWer, but it should be like 1%->30% tax for enemies of your faction.

Note that the "standing based fees" only work in combination with the modified office renting, else people just get a shopping alt which fills the corp hangar. For this to work, corp hangars need to be moved away.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by AlleyKat

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:59:00 +0000

Can we have a Factional Warfare server please?

No, seriously.

I'd like a new server where you pick a character, pick a race, and then fight against the other races.

No overlap with tranquility and being pod killed has the same impact it does currently.

I'd also like to have the following removed from this new server:

POS's and the warfare thereof
Private corporations
Capital ships
Anything T2, including ships (excludes officer, faction and cosmos items)

It is my very strong belief that the current server cannot deploy factional warfare effectively and the only way to have factional warfare would be to create a new server. "omg, not another 'lets have a new server' thread" - quite right, Tranquility is the server where EVE in a player-controlled environment exists and there is no way this should change. And that's kinda my point.

Player controlled story-lines outweigh and overshadow anything which CCP's (very talented and dedicated) events team produce for the tranquility server, and I have to add that although EVE online is a RPG, it is only an RPG by player induced action, not by default. In other words, there is no way in hell a Caldari pilot should ever consider flying with a Gallente pilot and vice versa.
If a new Factional Warfare server were created, then RPG would be genuinely possible, not the 'take it or leave it' choice players have today.

No matter how good the story lines are, no matter how dedicated the player is, no matter what you do, role playing in EVE is diluted by default - because CCP's sole responsibility to the players on Tranquility is to provide back story and padding. Giving the player-base as much choice as possible to achieve anything without limitations is what Tranquility is about.

Factional warfare should be limited to Factional goals and the players need to be guided in what their aims are. All races and factions should be puppets to the storyline which CCP has created and should be evolved along those lines, not the players.

I don't want Factional Warfare on Tranquility - I really do think there is no place for it, sorry, but that's my opinion.

So, can we have a new server for it please? Tranquility is for the players to control.

AK.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rigo Kajjar

Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:45:00 +0000

Edited by: Rigo Kajjar on 24/12/2007 23:45:18

Quote:
CCP Ginger > There will be no "PvP lite".

I think exactly that is a problem, because everyone who wants to do full PvP can already get it now. If the empire population would want more "full war PvP", they could easily move to 0.0 or start empire wars already now. But they don't ... so I think there is definitly more interest in the "faction" part than the "warfare" part of FW.

From my personal opinion, current gameplay lacks fun in areas of casual and solo PvP. FW could indeed fix that, but only with a "pvp lite" that would encourage small gangs instead blobbing and also not interfere too much with other interests of the current non-pvp players. However, "lite" doesn't seem to be the plan.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Granth Roden

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:13:00 +0000

Faction wars

Privateers

Factions would sell contracts for specific areas (regions - constellations - systems) for a given period of time.
When under contract, the pilot would become free bait for the target faction all the time (and when attacked could defend himself) but would only be able to lawfully kill them in his target region.
In the target region he'd be able to attack all lawful targets.
All lawful targets would give LPs, and the contract would start out negative - so if the pilot did nothing worthwhile he'd actually lose.
When the contract ended, he would get a very small standing bonus on that faction and a very small penalty on the target faction (nothing personal, just business, no hard feelings either way)

Shooting on own side would sharply drop standings on ALL factions, which would represent distrust of a traitor (he does to YOU, he can do the same to ME)

Quitting the contract would also cause a general drop in standings for ALL factions (nobody likes an untrustworthy mercenary)

Factions could use this (and tailor the rewards) to quickly get their force up in contested areas with mercenaries.
This would in effect act as a strategic RP tool.

If for instance the Minnies are getting clobbered by Amarr in a region, they would post these contracts at great rates and good rewards. This would get non-aligned pilots to hop there and join the fight, thus restoring the balance.

Players would profit by being able to test faction warfare without actually committing themselves too much.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Drethon

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:56:00 +0000

All I can say is as soon as you have the minimal functionality available for factional warfare, get it up on a second test server so that we can play with it and tell you what works and what doesn't before it actually goes live and locks down Eve into a new mode from then on.

"I may not believe in what you believe in but I will fight to the death to protect your right to believe."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sean Faust

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:51:00 +0000

Edited by: Sean Faust on 17/12/2007 17:54:45
Its a great idea in theory but wouldnt work in practice I think since many races enjoy a paper/rock/scissors layout to each other . . Minmatar ships eat gallente ships alive 1v1 since their ability to dictate range and the superior falloff of ACs vs Blasters allows them to completely negate gallente damage. Caldari ships get ripped apart by Amarr as Amarr ships deal the one type of damage that all caldari ships are naturally weak against and are typically faster, and in order to compensate for this caldari ships would have to devote valuable mids to ewar modules.

i dont think it would work because in 1v1 battles, most battles are over before they start as some races ships effectively cancel other races out.

IMHO It would be a good system to implement on the test server as it truly would test how "balanced" the races are for pvp in a way that cannot be done now. Watch a fleet of all Minmatar ships go up against a fleet of all Gallente ships and watch what happens.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Serathii

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:42:00 +0000

Edited by: Serathii on 14/12/2007 10:42:54
on the podding of the post above me: concord should just keep people safe from podding in empire, and for the parts in lowsec: your ship log records evrything you lock on too, if your agent finds you locked on to, and killed a pod, mission reward(standing, loyalty, isk, whatever) will be cut by 50% for each pod(so killing 2 pods would make it 75%)
thats my idea on it

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rn Bonnet

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:13:00 +0000

Edited by: Rn Bonnet on 14/12/2007 08:15:41
Podding Needs to go
Admittedly I skimmed the thread a bit but I didn't really see any mention of podding. That is a huge issue. If you want more people to participate in PvP, eg. create a more accessible system you need to remove one of the biggest risks to a newbie, getting podded. Most 'carebears' have implants, and often expensive ones, so that they can get some skills in a reasonable amount of time. While it may not seem like a huge deal, the 100,000isk for a clone and potentially 50mill isk loss for losing implants is simply unacceptable to newbies.

The answer to this areactually rather obvious, either:

implement rules of engagement for all sides. Much as it is considered abhorrent to shoot an surrendering military opponent today, it should be considered abhorrent by the sponsoring factions to pod someone whiling flying for them. If a play pods another during factional warfare they should at the very least, lose all mission rewards if not standings as well with the faction.

Or the other option is simply to have the sponsoring faction offer a free (or very cheap) complete clone, one the includes a clone of your implants, for the duration of your mission.

By putting a high price on podding during factional warfare, or decreasing the cost of it, you remove one of the greatest fears many newbies face about PvP. This makes PvP more accessible to everyone and helps you accomplish your goals.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TordenSkiold

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:44:00 +0000

In FW you must follow your race, or choose to betray it . Standings evolve accordingly.

Enemy NPC navy should present themselves similar to what the rats do now.

I like the idea of friendly NPC navy seen as "blue rats".

Enemy Navy players are shown as enemies at war do now (player v.s. player) , and killing them results in extra bonuses.

You'ld get bounties payed for dogtags etc.

Warfare would be restricted between the various faction navy corps. Thus new players would have to not start as members of those. Only membership by choice.

Player corporations should also have the option to join some sort of an "alliance" with the faction navys.

Faction gear would be one of the main motivators. And as a consequense, faction gear need to be far better ballanced between the races.

Faction wars need to have a large portion of PvP in it. Low-sec FW should/must purely be PvP.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Astria Tiphareth

Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:41:00 +0000

To continue my post:

An additional element needs adding for the roleplayers.

In the navy now!: You can sign up at your nearest recruitment office and join your faction's navy. Your faction needs YOU! (Would you like to know more? Service is citizenship). This is a more immersive equivalent to the above, where you gain faster and greater rewards than just a mercenary but at the cost of immediately being unwelcome with the faction you oppose. This should probably translate to immediately higher costs in high-sec and shoot-on-sight in low-sec, and then perhaps rising to shoot-on-sight in both in short order.

Now of course the question is, with all this new combat going on, what happens if you, a non-faction-aligned player, shoot at factional ships? Are you joining the factional war? Probably not; pirates are still pirates. There has to be some negative consequence though, and the obvious choice would be the same standing system. Shoot at a person or NPC aligned to a faction and you suffer a standing hit until you are eventually not welcome in their space and shot at by their navy.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Astria Tiphareth

Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:38:00 +0000

Factional warfare is a great concept and I can't wait to see the proposed design in some future patch, but it's really hard to implement in a way that will satisfy everyone.

I'd love to see borders changing, the NPCs getting involved a bit more, not always flying solo in missions but assisting NPCs, etc. (how many times have we done missions styled as convoy raids, stop & search duties, etc. which translate to a few brave players taking on an armada of red blinking dots? Where's my fire support, we cry...) However...

One of the biggest problems is that real war causes change and risk, and not everyone in EVE is ready for either of those. New players need a place to develop, to learn, without signing in on their first day and getting shot by someone in an opposing faction. There are after all learning curves and learning brick walls... Thus this means you need in essence to have immunity to factional warfare unless you want to be involved. Worse, you don't want to force everyone to pick sides so that some areas of Empire are off-limits, as that kills off mercenaries working for the highest bidder, trading with both warring factions, and simple travelling. It's not incredibly realistic, true, but necessary. Thus limiting to mostly low-sec is ideal but needs also to be plausible.

In terms of a fictional approach, I'd work it something like this: the factions desire ways to work out their differences forcefully, but CONCORD (or the Jovians for more firepower) insists that peace must be preserved or it will deal with warring factions severely. As a compromise, warfare is restrained to designated systems to avoid wholesale loss of civilian life... (etc etc - you get the idea, kind of like the Great Convention in Frank Herbert's Dune, warfare but with limits to avoid upsetting the status quo too much).

Thus borders can change, systems & stations can change hands, but not in a way that totally upsets the apple cart and destroys a faction. That nice high-sec mining or trading route isn't going anywhere. At the moment, low-sec is PvP oriented without any real faction influence beyond the usual agent stuff. I'd want to see not just PvP in factional warfare, but NPC ships in the fray. At the moment beyond station and gate-camping, the various factions' navies don't seem to do much. How would it look to see a fleet of Amarr battleships moving from central Amarr space to patrol their claims in low-sec space, or assaulting a Minmatar-held gate? This doesn't detract from PvP, those engaged in factional warfare can join in and involve themselves in their own campaigns.

I'd envisage several levels of involvement:

None (default): No ties to any faction, no faction is any more likely to take potshots at you than before.

Basic (For): You're pro a certain faction, but not heavily committed to them (for example a mercenary who prefers a certain set of ideals). Your faction will provide some basic advantages and rewards, and your opposing faction will dislike you, but you're not going to be denied docking or shot on sight, it's more dislike than hatred. This would increase as you did more for a given side, until it approached:

Involved (For): You're well regarded in your faction, and have new options available with them that people don't have before (faction POS without need for charter, faction guards your POS, call for escort/backup, new faction equipment unavailable via loyalty points, lots of possibilities). Conversely, your opposing faction will shoot you on sight in low-sec and charge you more in high-sec.

Basic & Involved (Against): You don't like a given faction, but you're not pro their enemy. In essence a declaration of intent that you will fight that faction, but as other posters have mentioned, it ought to come with positives, e.g. smuggling, black markets, resistance movements, all the criminal side of things that have really fallen by the wayside in EVE.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by NiiKleagh

Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:49:00 +0000

Won't happen - stop dreaming. CCP's servers can't and couldn't handle the load if two factions scream "This system is where the war-front is!"

To dream about it is one thing but, logistically, CCP's servers can't handle most groups randomly finding each other to fight now. I know this because I've been there when all sides agreed to stop fighting and just leave - there was no frame rate, there was no fight.

Instead of dreaming up schemes that can't happen, why not have a forum where you guys can write the source code that will make such warfare able to happen?

It would surely be a step closer to getting what you want than writing what your dreams are, here.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sinjei

Sat, 1 Dec 2007 19:49:00 +0000

Add specific structures into contested low security space. The coolest would be a huge mobile shipyard which players can dock at and has all or most of the features of a station. Perhaps no cloning bay so that podded players would not return immediantly.

Let's say that the Amarrian Empire is at war with the Minmatar Republic. Pilots could decide to side with one or the other by purchasing a "Soldier License". An Amarrian Soldier License would allow a pilot to freely engage those pilots with a Minmatar Soldier License. Basically these two players would be at war - everywhere and at any time. Or perhaps just in those contested systems.

Resigning from factional warfare would take 24 hours to take effect.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Revolution Rising

Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:45:00 +0000

I have no real idea if you guys can do it or not, but one thing that EvE can do in spades with the way the game works is a better AI. Factional warfare or not.

A computer running an AI corp could for instance have settings for itself, where it has a small amount of starting capital and trades on the markets. (Trades could be limited, or money just injected at regular intervals).

Imagine 4 trades a day, when the corp/faction hits 50m isk it declares war on a random corp with a certain number of members minimum and when the war is valid launches an amount of ships that roam empire/low-sec looking for targets for a week or so.

This kind of randomness is much lacking in most MMO's. Having RP events does shape the empire, but doesn't necessarily add much excitement.

Frigate warfare is quite limited for the random noobs in the game and various people I've had look at eve in the past while have not liked it because of its' obvious lean towards people who've been here longest...

While I think there's room to move, I also think they have a point of sorts - a stacked deck is never fun to play against. Add some fun for the noobs to the game. New corps and such also need things to do.

People need to travel 50 jumps into 0.0 to find a decent toe-to-toe war, and even then their timing can be bad and all they'll find is small gang warfare like nearer to empire .

I was talking with a friend about regular AI programming and read this MMORPG.com article - thought I would post. ;)

Mob Mentality Article

RR.

VRR Homepage

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:44:00 +0000

Volunteer Enforcement Officer (VEO)

This is a volunteer police force created through the joint efforts of Concord and the (insert race here) government to police high and low sec space.

VEOs are much like bounty hunters in that they are technically hunting for bounties.

To become a VEO you must go to one of the NPC military stations within Empire space. You can sign up with them for free as long as your Sec Rating is above 1.0.
If at anytime your Sec-Rating drops below 1.0 your VEO status is instantly revoked, if this happens whilst in high-sec, the VEO will be insta-popped. The VEO cannot be regained for 7 days, and you must have Sec-rating of 1.0.

A VEO can only attack targets with a global aggression timer and either a 1.0 sec-rating or bounty, or a registered criminal. (Because a criminal has a bounty on his head and has negative security status, he is a Registered Criminal until there is no longer a bounty on them or Sec status is above 1.0.) They cannot attack a player that is war-decked unless that war-decked player attacks a non-war-decked player who is not a registered criminal. If the War-Decked player IS a registered criminal, then he can be attacked as normal.

What can a VEO attack?

If a target has a Sec-Rating above 1.0 but has a bounty, the VEO can attack the target if the target has a global aggression timer.

If a target has a Sec-Rating below 1.0, the VEO can attack the target if the target has a global aggression timer.

If the target is a Registered Criminal, the VEO can attack them.

The VEO can attack the targets listed above anywhere in empire space.

If a VEO Pods a target in low-sec, he will get a Sec-Rating hit like everyone else would. If the Pods someone in High-sec, he receives double the Sec-Rating hit than if he was in low-sec space.

Attacking players outside of the list above will result the usual actions.

What do they get paid?
A VEO gets paid in LP

1,000,000 ISK= 500LP

If a VEO kills a registered criminal, he receives:
Base ship cost x 0.5 = LP
Example: Dominix Base cost 62.75mil x0.5= 31.375mil which the VEO will get in LP. = 15687.5LP

If a VEO kills a player with a Sec-Rating above 1.0 but has a bounty, OR, kills a player with a Sec-Rating below -1.0 but does not have a bounty, the VEO receives: Base ship cost x 0.25 = LP
Example: Dominix Base cost 62.75mil x0.25= 15.6875mil which the VEO will get in LP. = 7931.3LP

Now the basics are covered:
What do the VEO do?

They hunt pirates, quell hostile actions, hunt negative bounty hunters, hunt assassins.

I also think it would be a good idea for them to be able to try and hunt down smugglers instead of concord trying to do it. If the smuggler has a high sec rating then the VEO couldnt do anything to them in high sec, only scan their ships. But they could follow the smuggler to low sec, and then grab him. Shoot him and then take his illegal loot. They could then take it to the nearest military station (or maybe back to a specific station in high sec) and then trade it in to the authorities for LP.
Also they could maybe be corrupt cops, and just leave some of it in their hanger in low sec.

These few things I mentioned, I think could be like agent missions where the targets are real players. Or they could just be freelance,

I also think it could work in faction warfare. Each VEO would work for a joint Amarr + Concord or Minmatar + Concord. And when the warfare starts they could be conscripted to run missions against enemy faction targets, missions other VEO who work for other factions and that kind of thing.

I really dont know what this idea would do, just wondering if anyone else had any ideas about it.

-------------------------------

bring back Eve TV

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Shira d'Radonis

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:28:00 +0000

I'm very skeptical about Faction Warfare because to be honest, I think to do it right would have to be a huge gamble for the developers, and they would have to essentially sacrifice the safe sandbox in which new players start.

Front line systems need to be low-sec. That means players could find themselves unable to (at least easily) go from certain regions to other regions.

Victory needs to be achievable. If it's all just a lot of racking up of LP, it's not going to be any different or particularly better than mission-running. The Empires have to have finite resources. In other words, if I blow up an Amarr battleship in one system, it's one less battleship sent to the front some place else. This will allow small guerilla forces to have a big impact on the grand scale. Systems have to be able to change hands.

I'm inclined to suggest that NPC systems should be able to fall to player alliances and thus become conquerable by players for players... however this will probably lead to undesirable results. But ways for players and player alliances to more directly interact and to some degree control the actions of their governments would be good.

It's a tall order. It would be a HUGE change from the status quo... it could be potentially disastrous if new players find it just too difficult to get by in this much more dangerous world, and they might quit early on in frustration. This is exactly why I think the above criteria will probably never make it into FW. I can't say I'm terribly excited about any alternative.
-----------------------------------------------

quod ad ius naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt

"Our histories, one day, will absolve me..."
- Shira d'Radonis

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rancor Ives

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:58:00 +0000

I was thinking for starters with faction warfare creating deadspace areas that are accessible to players who accept faction missions. The deadspace areas would only be available to those persons and would include a combination of NPC and Players. The more NPC ships and opposing faction players you destroy, the more faction points you receive. If you are destroyed, warp out, or complete your mission objectives (i.e. destroy x number of opposing faction ships, destroy x faction base components, defend your faction's base for x number of minutes) then you receive additional faction points.

The faction points, in turn, could be used to purchase faction modules or ships after accumulating them. Also, the more faction victories your faction gains, could affect system sovereignty to the point where neither faction has sovereignty to where one faction takes sovereignty from another faction. This could also change the security level of the contested system as well.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:25:00 +0000

Originally by: xOm3gAx
In a nut shell FW should involve the following. Note: these are short and sweet for a reason the content is up to you.

1) Map's changing - change is good seeing empires expand and contract constantly would be wicked sick.

2) Fighting navies with navies by your side - again wicked sick especially if the other side drops faction gear =P (Which could act as an incentive).

3) Faction LP's granting you access to things like CNR's and State Ravens. Or Imp. Apoc's / Geddons. Etc you get the idea. No isk cost (*requires you to be sided with your faction*) but high LP cost. And ofc faction gear to outfit them. (obviously if you actually did put the state raven or imp's in i'd expect you to make them rediculously hard to get)

4) Stations / systems being conquered - again see #1 =D

5) If you side with a faction make it required to stay that way for a set amount of time in order to make the rewards a bit more balanced. So you can't just grind away to get uber ships. Make people work for them.

6) Um, well its war make it everywhere. I want to see REAL war between the empires. Otherwise there is no point to it all.

Thats all i got for now but if i think of more ill post it.

1) Just don't go too crazy with it, and stick with lowsec systems for now. The pace of war out in 0.0 is a potential model.
2) Definitely. I mentioned the idea of attaching NPC ships to player gangs.
3) Definitely. While handing out faction ships like candy would be a little much, faction gear should be easy to get.
4) Yep.
5) Agreed 100%. I suggested that to really get involved, you have to commit to serve your country for a few months. But simply running freelance missions should also be an option.
6) I disagree somewhat. Keep highsec mostly safe - factional warfare should focus on lowsec.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.

The True Meaning of Freedom

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by xOm3gAx

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:09:00 +0000

In a nut shell FW should involve the following. Note: these are short and sweet for a reason the content is up to you.

1) Map's changing - change is good seeing empires expand and contract constantly would be wicked sick.

2) Fighting navies with navies by your side - again wicked sick especially if the other side drops faction gear =P (Which could act as an incentive).

3) Faction LP's granting you access to things like CNR's and State Ravens. Or Imp. Apoc's / Geddons. Etc you get the idea. No isk cost (*requires you to be sided with your faction*) but high LP cost. And ofc faction gear to outfit them. (obviously if you actually did put the state raven or imp's in i'd expect you to make them rediculously hard to get)

4) Stations / systems being conquered - again see #1 =D

5) If you side with a faction make it required to stay that way for a set amount of time in order to make the rewards a bit more balanced. So you can't just grind away to get uber ships. Make people work for them.

6) Um, well its war make it everywhere. I want to see REAL war between the empires. Otherwise there is no point to it all.

Thats all i got for now but if i think of more ill post it.

Originally by: CCP Abraxas
Her boyfriend's way hot, too; tall and tanned. And I say this as a very hetero male who doesn't ever dream of the man on cold, dark nights.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Feng Schui

Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:09:00 +0000

Edited by: Feng Schui on 26/11/2007 09:09:35
My 2 iskies on Factional Warfare:

(Presuming I am aligned with Minmatar, and Bob is aligned with Amarr)

You should not be limited to the ships you can fly. I fly the pilgrim. I trained up for it. You can **** off if you tell me I can't use it (Or just nerf it into oblivion so I'll train up for a Rapier )

Do not remove CONCORD. Instead, when I join up with the Matari Fleet, Bob can shoot me (I'm red to him now) in high sec space.

Kill the insta-pwnage of the Faction Police. Seriously.

Faction standing rewards: If I kill Bob, my Minmatar standing is increased greatly and Amarr is decreased greatly.

About those pesky stations? Well, we need to fight for something, right? Lets say there is a Minmatar station in Amarr. My agent tells me to defend that station for 2 hours. When I warp into the system (killing or avoiding the faction police), the 2 hours starts.

Bob gets a mission to conquer the station for the Amarrians. He calls in CVA, they bring in a couple of battleships, and start to conquer the station (the stations should have the hitpoints of a small POS).

Now, I can do 1 of 3 things:

1) Sit there cloaked, agent be damned (Normal standings increase / standard mission reward).

2) I kill them all (or station is not attacked). (Get standings / LP / gear / stuff. Think of the "mission bonuses" in missions currently).

3) I die. (Failed the mission, but no standings decrease. That would just suck, and would turn me off of FW forever).

I guess thats it. I can explain furthur, but I think you guys can get the basic idea of what I'm saying w/o going waaaaay out into left field.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by MotherMoon

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:58:00 +0000

Edited by: MotherMoon on 23/11/2007 15:58:16
I want blue and red rats, including in 0.0 space.

that is all.

Official fanboy of jenny<
pink supporter!
looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:12:00 +0000

BTW do the Devs want mission ideas as well?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:11:00 +0000

I think that if its kept REALLY close to the storyline/stories or if its missions against players (maybe missions against players doing FW missions) Either way there should be as much ingame secrecy as possible.

Example - this example also shows another idea for FW missions

Person A has been at 0.3 standings for a while and now she has just finished a mission that has pushed her up to 0.4. Now she looks at the mission board and now some of the missions that used to say TOP SECRET (or something like that) are now available to her. So she goes for one. The mission has a date time and location on when it will commence and when it could end as well as all the normal information you would expect from a mission. There are 7 primary slots open
[Primary slots: are for the people who are actually taking part in the story of the mission and are all of a certain standing or higher. When the mission starts the slots lock and nobody else can join to fill a slot unless invited to the commander]
and 8 secondary slots
[Secondary Slots: anyone can join a secondary slot at anytime during the mission, but if their standing isnt high enough they cannot look up the mission details, or why the mission is being done]
for the mission and Person A claims one of the primary ones. She carries on with her EVE day flying through space and trading and doing other missions until the date comes for the mission. (Maybe like a day later or something).

She turns up at the correct station and meets the 6 other people who filled the Primary slots (so they will get the most reward) and 4 people filled secondary slots (these people will get partial reward) (or they could be her friends who all decided to go for the same missions together)
The players decide who should be in charge and set as commander (boss) of the mission. And plan how they will do the mission.

Their mission is to escort the NPC piloted hauler from point A in high sec space to point B in low sec because [insert storyline here]

They can plan the route they take and assign the hauler to one of the people in the primary slots (so it just follows him around) or someone from the primary slots can pilot it them selves.

The EVE clock strikes 15:00 hours and the mission begins and they have 3 hours to get it to point B or they receive no reward and maybe get a drop in standing (depending on the mission).
Now they are Team 1.

Team 2 have gone through everything Team 1 went through, only they are with an enemy faction and more people turned up to fill the slots.

Their mission.
An enemy hauler is being escorted from somewhere in X constellation and is being taken to Y constellation sometime between 15:00 and 18:00 eve time. [insert storyline here] Intercept and destroy the hauler, or capture it if possible. (if the hauler ends up being NPC piloted, that can be an option, once all the primary slot members are dead)
You mission begins at 14:30 eve time and ends up 18:00.

That will be all the information they get though maybe the story can give added clues as to what system or even what station they are starting from or ending at.

Well as you can see, both sides are running missions, but their missions will cross paths, if the attackers research the routes and scout properly, but even if nobody takes the mission on either or both sides. The npc pilot will fly the hauler along a route anyway. Without escort if it must.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mi Lai

Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:47:00 +0000

No suggestions here yet, just a few questions:

- If I / a corp decides to fly for a faction, will they automatically 'be in touch' with the others doing so? Let's say I announce to fly for the Khanid (ok, Amarr at first), will we get individual objectives to complete? Or will objectives be granted to the total of participants to the Faction? If so, how do you deal with both people simply putting spies in all / opposing factions? The entry level is intended to be low.

- You can declare for a Faction as individual. How do you prevent making this rather schizophrenic for corporations that are multi-racial? Though I can see the comedy value in blowing up your minnie corpmate which you flown with for ages to gain some kudos from the Emperor, I'm affraid this might make FW feel much more like a sort of amusement park to enter at times instead of giving this all out space drama feeling that makes me happy in the pants.

- How do you intend to maintain a clear line between what is FW Content and what is Player Made Content? A simple example is when a corp loyal to let's say Amarr goes to war with another corp that is loyal to Amarr? Would a person that declared for the Amarr that kills Amarr on duty be penalised? I assume so as killing the opposition makes your Faction happy, killing people of that Faction will make them angry. I like EVE for it has consequences, but I would hate seeing NPC's becomming to much part of those consequences.

- What if a certain faction gets stomped in the ground? If you belong to a Corp or Alliance that gets totally raped by another player corporation, you can simply dissolve, join another corp, negotiate, whatever. If a Faction gets repeatedly stomped in the ground, what would you do? As an example, what if the Amarr totally trash the Minmatar, time and time again? Would you just let it go on, not interfering with the people playing in the sandbox?
Though I would hate to see something like a periodical 'reset' in EVE like some PVP games have opted for, nor 'divine intervention' to balance the books, I think we need to be real that while people can leave a Player organisation, and even dissolve it, this wont hold true for the NPC Factions. Especially if gained / lost standings play a part into who you can fly for.

- How will content for FW be generated? Will it be like missions, where you get a random assignment from a limmited list for a faction that will reward you, or will there be a real person / persons employed to create content (much like the 'Dungeon Master' or 'Game Master' in traditional pen and paper RPGs)? <- would love this if it's possible to budget this in.

While I'm very enthusiastic about the prospect of FW, one worry is that it will end up being more of a mechanic (like the mission system) then something truely awesome to be part of.
My biggest worry is for FW to become mission-like. Not to slag off missions here, but after having done quite a few on all levels, it degenerates into 'how to collect reward fastest/safest' instead of 'Good God! The pirate bastards have captured our beloved Lords daughter! I won't rest till she is back safe!' I really want to be able to immerse and have a feeling that screaming 'Blood, Blood, Blood' for the Blood Raiders or 'Amarr Victor' for the Amarr can be combined with actually having in game results.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Shaemell Buttleson

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:29:00 +0000

If PPL who never leave leave NPC corps can be targeted in factional warfare I think that might be a step in the right direction.

*snip* Do not use your signature to troll or insult other EVE players even if the little turds deserve it! -Rauth Kivaro (mods@ccpgames.com)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:45:00 +0000

Originally by: Nachshon
Anyway, while I'll be the first to admit that you have put a LOT of effort into this idea... I don't like it. I don't like the idea of FW and non-FW standings being separate, for one.

I think they would have to be separate (i do mean in a standings window) because from what I've read about FW is supposed to be for anyone to join, but not have to take part if they dont want to. So your going to have to keep your:
Normal standings to Player corps/alliances (non FW standings)
individual standings (to agents and so on)
Individual FW/group standings (i suppose these may be together or separate depending on how they do it. But i think it would be better separate because then you could do the whole "double agent" kind of thing)

Originally by: Nachshon
I also have a few beefs with your proposal to allow capsuleers to claim sovereignty in lowsec.

Ah it seems all my writing was not clear enough on that point, i was worried about that. Its not real sovereignty (I should have used another word) its recognition. You dont own anything in low sec, you are just recognized as being the best FW faction in that area, with some nice side bonuses. And 0.1 to 0.9 Sov (maybe we should call it influence or something?) is only for Low sec and NPC 0.0 space.
The rest of the SOV rules is actually for claiming in 0.0 proper. If you want to build an epic Faction Empire that Rival the PvPers, takes part in all the stories (probably as a main influence) and be the target of Enemy Faction missions.

I guess I just went all a bit too far, I have never RP yet in this game, and Im really only just getting to grips with the universe. The people I play with are number crunchers when it comes to the game. Best Mathematical ship build and all that. All I hear from a lot of PvPers is damn RP/Immersionists. But I think the game mechanics and the sandbox in general is geared more toward the hardcore PvP, basically any bonuses for the those who want to RP, or at least semi RP.

Originally by: Nachshon
Also, tying sovereignty to kill ratio is a bad idea. What if one small but effective force shows up and destroys a lone enemy ship with no losses, while a larger alliance has been fighting tooth-and-nail, losing many ships but slaying far more? The small force has an infinite kill ratio. I'd say tie it to simple kill count, which reflects effort.

Well your right about that, it doesnt work. But I have had another idea:
maybe something along the line of bounties, when you kill enemy Faction ships (player or NPC) you and your faction gains LP, and a % of that becomes a bounty on your head (in LP) for the enemy faction to win back, or for other enemy faction corps or individual members that are nothing to do with your claim for recognition can try to win it off you.

In your system you can have a top 15 LP Bounty Board. The side with the most members on that board goes up a level at the end of the day. If nobody wins, the 0.Sov stays the same and you do it again the next day for the next day.

Also there is always the classic Mission and Counter Mission (and that could be meant in FW PVP as well) against each other for LP to buy your influence.

Still, thanks for your honest comments.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:50:00 +0000

I skimmed over your posts (citing detailed stats wasn't really necessary). You probably should have put this in another thread, and linked it from this one.

Anyway, while I'll be the first to admit that you have put a LOT of effort into this idea... I don't like it. I don't like the idea of FW and non-FW standings being separate, for one.

I also have a few beefs with your proposal to allow capsuleers to claim sovereignty in lowsec. I don't like the idea in general. Politicians are among the few people who rank above us in the social hierarchy of EVE. And they will ensure that we know this, if nothing else to preserve their egos when faced with people who are rich, powerful, and immortal. They will not let us gain sovereignty in lowsec.

What they MIGHT do is allow loyalist corps and alliances to build structures that require sovereignty at their own stations, in return for a measure of control over the station. Say Gradient wants to build a jump bridge in Egbinger. The Republic gains ownership of the station (it is officially a Republic-owned station) but Gradient retains management and access rights.

Also, tying sovereignty to kill ratio is a bad idea. What if one small but effective force shows up and destroys a lone enemy ship with no losses, while a larger alliance has been fighting tooth-and-nail, losing many ships but slaying far more? The small force has an infinite kill ratio. I'd say tie it to simple kill count, which reflects effort.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.

The True Meaning of Freedom

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:06:00 +0000

Capital Outpost Node

Imperial Region Sovereignty allows you to buy a new space station structure called a Capital Outpost node [CON]. The CON has all the same stats as a large tower but with 5 main differences.

1: The Capital Outpost Node can only use 50% of the CPU and Power grid for Gunnery placements and shield hardeners.

2: The Capital Outpost Node can only use 50% of the CPU and Power grid for deployable structures other than Gunnery placements and Shield Hardeners.

3: The Capital Outpost Node does not have a reinforced mode.

4: The Capital Outpost Node can be anchored to a Constellation Capital Outpost.

5: The Capital Outpost Node can be anchored to another Capital Outpost Node.

The Capital Outpost Node counts as an extension of the Outpost and so is immune to attack until Imperial Region Sovereignty becomes contested.

Boarding Module
Allows marines to board a Control Tower, offline it and all structures anchored to it and give control of it all to your corporation.
Bonus: 20% reduction in activation time per Level.

Activation Range 5km
CPU: 35
PG: 20
Activation cost: 65
Activation Time: 30secs
Ammunition: Marines
Capacity: 750m3
Fitting: High Slot

Boarding Requirement: To successfully board a control tower, it must first be in Armour. Number of Marines required = 10% of station capacity.

Well thats it.
Abd i probably have just wasted sooooo much time, but i cant sleep so this was the result.

I would like to hear some response from people, just to know what they think of the idea, ir at least some of it.

I would like to ask the Devs though:
I know this is probably nothing even close to what you were thinking of. But i do wonder, if you ever happened to think of doing something new, do you think something like this is even possible to put in EVE?

Well I'm just wondering anyways.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:00:00 +0000

ANTI-Cruiser [ATB]
HACS and cruisers are going to have a problem getting close to these. High tracking speed means it could keep up with all but the fastest of cruiser class ships. How ever its light weight which allows its tracking to keep up with cruisers has come at the expense its armour. Battleships could easily deal with these guns, either from range or with a battleships shear brute force.

Fitting
Powergrid: 0
CPU:0
Structure Interface Bandwidth: 200

Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Shield Recharge Time: 10,000sec

Armour
Armour HP: 900,000

Structure
Speed: 300ms
Orbit Speed: 220ms
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged

Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 20
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 345m
Scan Resolution: 255

Miscellaneous

Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 80km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0812
Rate of Fire: 5secs
Damage Modifier: 3
Signature Resolution: 120
Anchoring Delay: 300sec
Un-Anchoring Delay: 60sec
Onlineing Delay: 300sec
Minimum anchoring distance from Starbase shield: 15km
Base Price: 90,000,000

ANTI-Frigate [ATB]
Fast short range and low armour, just like their targets. These guns could make short work of the average frigate class ship. How ever it is open to attack from anything larger than a frigate that can tank its damage. And like each of the ATBs they are vulnerable to being the victim of EW.

Fitting
Powergrid: 0
CPU:0
Structure Interface Bandwidth: 150

Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Shield Recharge Time: 10,000sec

Armour
Armour HP: 400,000

Structure
Speed: 600ms
Orbit Speed: 460ms
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged

Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 12
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 295m
Scan Resolution: 395

Miscellaneous

Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 50km
Accuracy Falloff: 50km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 1.2
Rate of Fire: 3secs
Damage Modifier: 1
Signature Resolution: 100
Anchoring Delay: 300sec
Un-Anchoring Delay: 60sec
Onlineing Delay: 300sec
Minimum anchoring distance from Starbase shield: 20km
Base Price: 20,000,000

Shield Enhancement Station [SES]
SESs are POSs that can only be anchored once an EECC has been anchored. Once online it interfaces with target offline Corp/Alliance owned Station. Once interfaced with target station and the target station is brought online, the SES will boost the shields of the target station making it invulnerable. It is very useful and powerful defensive toy and the primary target of most fleets. However if it is scouted down, the scout can see which station it is boosting, and if that station is a viable target, expect a fleet not too far behind.

More than one SES can be interfaced with a station.
SES can only be interfaced with an offline station.
SES can only be anchored at a moon.

Fitting
Power Grid: 312500
CPU: 343.75
Structure Interface Bandwidth: 1000

Shield
Shield: 10000000
Resists: N/A
Shield recharge time:200,000 sec

Armour
Armour HP: 2500000

Structure
Capacity: 6875m3
Mass: 1,000,000kg
Volume: 2000m3

Targeting
Radar Sensor Strength: 2000
Ladar Sensor Strength: 2000
Magnetometric Sensor Strength: 2000
Gravimetric Sensor Strength: 2000
Signature Radius: 1000m

Miscellaneous
Activation Proximity: 250km
Anchoring Delay: 450 sec
Maximum Structure distance: 35km
Un-Anchoring Delay: 1,800 sec
Onlining Delay: 450 sec
Shield Radius 5km
Moon Anchor Distance: 100km
Base Price: 500,000,000

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:59:00 +0000

[Secondary Structures]

Declaration Embassy [DE] [Class: Medium Tower] [Sov 2 structures]
Only 1 can be deployed per planet and its moons.
Must have Sovereignty 1 to Anchor DE

After sovereignty 1 the DE has taken the place of POSs in claiming space. The DE allows you to claim sovereignty over a planet by anchoring it at one of its moons. But only one can be anchored to claim a planet, which means your enemy has to destroy your DE to put his one up and claim the planet. By seeding the other moons with defensive stations you can make the enemy really have to work to destroy it. But seeding too many structures to boost its defence will weaken the logistics of your system, so you will have to echo the political climate in that area of space and balance your defences and logistics accordingly.

Bonus:
50% Bonus to Energy Sentry Optimal Range
25% Bonus to Energy Sentry Damage
50% Bonus to Silo Cargo Capacity

[Sub-Structures]

Advanced Turret Battery [ATB]
The DGCC allows you to anchor these powerful next generation defensive batteries. Each type has its obvious upsides but a good FC could figure out their weak spots. So a good balance is often recommended, unless you have the fleet cover the weaknesses.
Another thing that makes these different from other turrets is that they orbit the station, a little bit of movement goes along way.

[Amarr Pulse Laser] For exaple

ANTI-CAPITAL [ATB]

The Anti-Capital ATB is a very powerful weapon against the slow moving capital ships. If an entire system is geared toward defence using the 5 DGCCs you can anchor 5 of these guns at each Station. How ever the only thing they can hit is a broad side of a capital ship which means smaller fast ships could easily get in close and destroy these guns allowing the Capital ships to jump into range.

Fitting
Powergrid: 0
CPU:0
Structure Interface Bandwidth: 1000

Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Shield Recharge Time: 10,000sec

Armour
Armour HP: 4,800,000

Structure
Speed: 10ms
Orbit Speed: 10ms
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged

Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 46
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 500m
Scan Resolution: 35

Miscellaneous

Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 300km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.00163
Rate of Fire: 20secs
Damage Modifier: 700
Signature Resolution: 1500
Anchoring Delay: 300sec
Un-Anchoring Delay: 60sec
Onlineing Delay: 300sec
Minimum anchoring distance from Starbase shield: 10km
Base Price: 800,000,000

ANTI-Battleship [ATB]
Battleships will have real problems getting close to these guns, and capital ships will have a bit of an issue sniping at them due to their low sig radius. Small fast ships on the other hand could easily duck underneath and close in on these guns.

Fitting
Powergrid: 0
CPU:0
Structure Interface Bandwidth: 350

Shield
Shield HP: 100,000
Shield Recharge Time: 10,000sec

Armour
Armour HP: 1,800,000

Structure
Speed: 100ms
Orbit Speed: 85ms
Capacity: 1m3 [Size will vary for other races]
Mass: 1,000,000Kg
Volume: 5000m3 Packaged

Targeting
Max Locked Targets: 1
Radar Sensor Strength: 32
Ladar Sensor Strength:0
Magnetometric Sensor Strength:0
Gravimetric Sensor Strength:0
Signature Radius: 295m
Scan Resolution: 95

Miscellaneous

Charge Size: X Large
Activation Proximity: 200km
Accuracy Falloff: 100km
Tracking Speed/ Accuracy: 0.0337
Rate of Fire: 8secs
Damage Modifier: 100
Signature Resolution: 350
Anchoring Delay: 300sec
Un-Anchoring Delay: 60sec
Onlineing Delay: 300sec
Minimum anchoring distance from Starbase shield: 15km
Base Price: 400,000,000

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:55:00 +0000

As FW players, these new structures may seem a bit daunting or even complex. There not really, just think of it as a spiders net that your creating with these stations. Its very different from the PvP style Sov but the premise is the same but rather than steam rolling over POSs like the non-FW players, actual planning and missions matter more here than might (though might wouldnt hurt) and Factional warfare in a style more akin to eve fantasy is beneficial. (at least I think it would work like that)

Bare in mind that each of the structures below actually have different race version. But I just did a stock build for now.

I did also think that much of these things could be bought with LP as well as ISK.

Station Types:

POSs are still important
Even though in this system POSs are no longer the way to gain SOV, they are still the backbone to the logistical/industrial/financial parts of your alliance.
Other structures are now being anchored at moons which means there is less space to put your POSs and there for you have to be more selective about how you place structures and what role you will have your POSs perform.
This does mean that when you lose a POS that it can be a big deal. Which also means that smaller alliances that normally wouldnt make a dent in a larger alliance will now have more viable targets to go for and can strike some painful blows to larger alliances logistical/industrial/financial parts.

Structure Interface Bandwidth [SIB]
The SIB is very similar to Drone Bandwidth. It allows you to use other structures that do not require CPU/PG from your station. But there is a downside. These structures [Advanced Turret Batteries and Shield Enhancement Stations] cannot connect to an online POS. For example; a POS must first offline, and then a Shield Enhancement Station will be anchored at a moon and put online. You then select which POS the SES will interface with [the offline POS] and then online the POS.
However you can interface more than one structure at a time and there for have backups should one of them be destroyed.
If the stations that provide SIB to all your POSs are destroyed, all your POSs will lose their SIB and the interfaced structures will go offline.

[Primary Structures]

Command Centres: [cc][maximum of 5 CCs total can be deployed per system] [Sov 1 structures]Deploying CCs is the first step claiming Sov1. A total of 5 can be anchored in one system and to claim Sov1 you need have at least 3/5 of the CCs in the system for 7 days.

Knowing what your Alliances strengths/weaknesses are will help you decide what CCs to choose.

If your Alliance strength is in small fast ships and your weakness is a lack of capital ships, you can tailor system defences to play on your strengths and strengthen your weaknesses.

Defence Grid Command Centres [DGCC] [Class: Large Tower]
[Base Price: 1,000,000,000]

The DGCC allows you to bolster and shape you defence to your Alliances strengths and help cover its weaknesses. As well as giving all your POSs a bit more CPU/PG which can be used for 1 or 2 extra guns or shield hardeners. It also allows you to anchor ATBs which can allow you form your defence toward combating Capital ships or against smaller faster ships.
Anchoring the DGCC as the majority can really make the system quite offensive from station to station. Forcing the enemy to have to resort to using small fast ships against the defences of one POS, Capital ships against another and more inventive methods against the next, depending how you set up your defence.

Bonus:
All Stations in system receive 1000 Structure Interface Bandwidth.
2% Bonus to POS Power Grid and CPU in system.

DGCC Allows all stations in system to interface with Advanced Turret Batteries.

Logistic Command Centre [LCC] [Class: Large Tower]
[Base Price: 1,000,000,000]

The LCC can really solve a lot of headaches when it comes to the logistics of running sovereign space. It gives the ability to save on fuel and helps with efficiency of your industry.
This can be handy in a system with a low number of moons. Deploying 5 LCCs can make the most out of the few POSs in the system.

Bonus:
5% bonus to POS fuel efficiency in system.
2% bonus to Reactor Arrays, Moon Harvesting Arrays and Refining Arrays efficiency.

Energy Equalizing Command Centre [EMCC] [Class: Large Tower] [Base Price: 1,000,000,000]

Anchoring at least 1 of these CC is essential. The EECC bolsters you SIB and allows you interface with an SEP. Allowing you to make some of those stations you painstakingly anchored invulnerable and forcing the enemy to use brains as well as brawn when deciding how best to invade your space.

Bonus:
All Stations in system receive 1000 Structure Interface Bandwidth.
2% Bonus to all POS shield HP in system.

EECC Allows all stations in system to interface with Shield Enhancement POSs.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:39:00 +0000

Sovereignty 3 [Province] Requirement
Protectorate level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days

Bonus:
Twinned jump bridge structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system).

Cynosural field jammer structures can be anchored (Note: Only two may be anchored per system)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 3 to your Faction, your standings will raise to 3.

Hostile Faction NPCs create exploration complexes.

Corp/Alliance Receives 300,000LP

How to challenge Sov 3:
A single Declaration Embassy claims sovereignty over a Planet when it is anchored at one of its moons. More than 50% of the systems planets must be claimed. [Only one Declaration Embassy can be anchored per planet]

Sovereignty 4 [Constellation Capital] Requirement
Province level sovereignty undisrupted for thirty days.
Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within the constellation.

Bonus:
Sovereignty of the system cannot be contested, and is locked into place until the system is forced to a lower sovereignty level.

Faction Warfare Bonus:
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 4 to your Faction, your standings will raise to 4.

NPC Faction Navy Fleet patrols the stargates in Capital system.

Corp/Alliance Receives 1,000,000LP

Constellation Capital Sovereignty Warfare

If one of the following requirements is met, Constellation Capital sovereignty will change to a contested mode:

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the constellation.

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the minimum of three outposts or conquerable stations.

The alliance holding Constellation Capital sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station.

Sovereignty 5 [Imperial Region] Requirement
Constellation Capital Sovereignty undisturbed for 60 days.
Constellation Sovereignty needs to be in effect for your alliance within 5 constellations.

Bonus:
Can Deploy Capital Outpost Nodes.
10% bonus to POS fuel efficiency
15% Bonus to Command Centre fuel efficiency.

Faction Warfare Bonus:
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 5 to your Faction, your standings will raise to 5.

Faction Navy Fleets patrol all gates within Empiric Region sovereignty.
Can rent Imperial Region systems to your allied Faction for large amounts of LP.
Rented systems will increase in security status per standings level. Each higher level of security status equals higher number of NPC Faction Navy protection for system.
At standings 6, rented system becomes Security Status 0.1
At standings 7, rented system becomes Security Status 0.2
At standings 8, rented system becomes Security Status 0.3
At standings 9, rented system becomes Security Status 0.4

Imperial Region Sovereignty Warfare

If one of the following requirements is met, Imperial Region sovereignty will change to a contested mode:

The alliance holding Imperial Region sovereignty loses sovereignty control of the majority of the systems in the Imperial Region.

The alliance holding Imperial Region sovereignty loses control of the minimum of 10 outposts or conquerable stations in Imperial Region Sovereignty.

The alliance holding Imperial Region sovereignty loses control of the capital outpost or conquerable station.

(FW Structures to follow)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:36:00 +0000

Faction Warfare Sovereignty

I also think that RP and FW players should have their own line to sovereignty. Ive heard the devs say a few times that the players make the best stories.
I think if FW Corps/Alliances had the same scope that the average PvPer has, they could use it to help promote the world of FW, allow more players as a whole to be involved in many levels of epic stories. Basically I the FW and RP need a slightly different geared sandbox to play with, and one thats not geared to Blob warfare as PvP often tends to be, especially when you get to the large scale. But instead more toward theatrical fleet battles worthy of stories, the game is a beautiful beast, and even though the sight of 50 Dreadnaughts frightening concept, I think I would be more afraid of a fully varied Amarr fleet. (Like in the game trailers)
I know that what is written here is just the PVP Sovereignty system with some tweaks. But try to bare in mind that its like this so the non-FW alliances can transfer their sov over FW, their only down side is that they would have to fill the requirements to for FW before it switches over to FW.

Please also bare in mind, this isnt a Sov mark II. It will be running along side the main system, which the non-FW players will be doing as normal. Also should the non-FW players want to invade your space the will have to drop you Sov level according to the FW rules, so they can take sov according to their rules. Of course you would have to take it back based on non-FW rules so that you can claim it again on FW rules. Which will be another epic in game story.

Finally, before I push on. I would just like to say that this isnt about the pvp with non-fW (thats just a nice bonus) Its about battle other FW alliances doing the same thing as you are.

And it being FW, story would be a part of the whole thing. You could give mission to individual FW players who come to your space, hunt the FW bounty hunters that roam to pick you off. Be large parts of epic eve storylines, host large parts of epic storylines. Every pvp action that takes place will be another chronicle. People can run their own RP (group and individual) in and around and involving your space. Host missions for the newbie masses and individual players on individual FW stories can work their way up in your faction and a few other things I listed below.

All that is written below is for the FW alliance/corp players

Sovereignty 1 [Territory] Requirement

A Command Centre is automatically set to claim sovereignty. At least 3 Command Centres need to be in place for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.

Bonus:
Your alliance is visually represented on the starmap as being the sovereign of the solar system for a faction

You can only deploy outposts in solarsystems where your alliance holds sovereignty.

Outposts and conquerable stations held by your alliance are invulnerable until you lose sovereignty.

Your Starbases get 25% bonus to their fuel efficiency.

Your alliance is able to anchor capital shipyard production facilities, thus enabling the construction.

You can only deploy Declaration Embassys in solarsystems where your Corp/Alliance controls sovereignty.

Faction Warfare Bonus:
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 1 to your Faction, your standings will raise to 1.

Corp/Alliance Receives 100,000LP

Faction enemies will receive an LP bounty for each member of your Corp/Alliance they destroy.
Based on ship Class:
Frigate: 100LP
Cruiser: 500LP
Battle Cruiser: 800LP
Battleship: 1000LP
Capital Ship: 10,000LP
Super Capital Ship: 20,000LP

How to challenge Sov 1:
A total of 5 Command Centres can be anchored in one system at one time. At least 3 Command Centres need to be in place for seven days, and then sovereignty should be gained after the following downtime.

Sovereignty 2 [Protectorate] Requirement

A single Declaration Embassy claims sovereignty over a Planet when it is anchored at one of its moons. More than 50% of the systems planets must be claimed. [Only one Declaration Embassy can be anchored per planet]
Territory level sovereignty undisrupted for fourteen days

Bonus:
Cynosural field generator arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).

Scanner arrays can be anchored within the system (Note: Only one may be anchored per system).

Faction Warfare Bonus:
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 2 to your Faction, your standings will raise to 2.

Hostile Faction NPCs appear in asteroid belts.

Corp/Alliance Receives 200,000LP

How to challenge Sov 2:
A single Declaration Embassy claims sovereignty over a Planet when it is anchored at one of its moons. More than 50% of the systems planets must be claimed. [Only one Declaration Embassy can be anchored per planet]

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:58:00 +0000

Edited by: Archivian Specialatus on 19/11/2007 04:17:54
Sovereignty 0.8 /Faction Sovereignty 0.8

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (8 days) in that system.
8% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.2 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.2.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

How to Contest Sovereignty 0.6-0.8
Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

If the Corp/Alliances efficiency rating is not the highest, their Sovereignty will drop to 0.5

Sovereignty 0.9 /Faction Sovereignty 0.9 [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.1 Sec but continues to 0.0 Sec]

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other Sovereignty 0.8 claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (9 days) in that system.
9% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.2 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.2.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space
Corp/Alliance receives 1000LP for every day Sov 0.9 is held in that system.

How to Contest Sovereignty 0.8-0.9
Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

If the Corp/Alliances efficiency rating is not the highest, their Sovereignty will drop to 0.8

I also believe that everyone competeing for this will spur on the warfare part of the FW, and also attract lots of individual FW players such as bounty hunters looking for FW players, and mission runners and many other kinds.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:57:00 +0000

Sovereignty 0.4 /Faction Sovereignty 0.4[Maximum Sovereignty for 0.3 Sec]

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.
Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (4 days) in that system.
4% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.4 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.4.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Sovereignty 0.5 /Faction Sovereignty 0.5

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (5 days) in that system.
5% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.5 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.5.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

How to Contest Sovereignty 0.1-0.5
Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Loss of one Sovereignty level will occur if the Corp/Alliances efficiency rating is not the highest.

Sovereignty 0.6 /Faction Sovereignty [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.6 Sec]

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (6 days) in that system.
6% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.6 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.6.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Sovereignty 0.7 /Faction Sovereignty 0.7

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (7 days) in that system.
7% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.2 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.2.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:55:00 +0000

Faction Warfare [FW]

I dont actually know how it will work or anything Im just putting forward a system that I think could get non-RP into FW and if PVPers want to make the jump into it as well they can. This system is for corporations and alliances and not the individual

Note: There are two trees of ascent in this idea for a system. The FW bonuses are the ones you want to look at for an FW alliance. If an independent (non-FW) wants to jump over to FW, they then cant start gaining their SOV levels until they make up for the FW qualifications to gain the sov.

Alliance/Corp/Individual Faction standings are separate from each other and non-alliance/corporate standings.

Example:
Individually you are allied to Caldari, but your Alliance/Corp Just turned FW and have just allied to Amarr, and your life long non-FW alliance allies have just Turned FW allied with Minmatar. Your non-FW-Alliance Standings will remain positive but your Faction standing (which is separate) will be negative.

So your standings might show as:
Non FW standings Blue + 7
FW individual Red 2
FW Corp/Alliance Red -10

Killing a Blue, Red, Red or a Red, Red, Red will earn your Alliance and yourself standings/LP.
Killing a Blue, Red, Blue will earn you Individually Standings/LP, but you will lose Standings/LP for your Alliance, and Killing Red, Blue, Red will lose yourself Individual standings/LP but gain your Alliance Stanings/LP.

Confused? So am I, but thats for the Devs to work out.

But im going to carry on, as if I know what Im talking about just for the sake of argument.

To join faction warfare your Corp/Alliance CEO must travel to the capital of the Faction the Corp/Alliance will have standings to. Or he can go to his Corp office to choose to be an independent.
When a Corp/Alliance has chosen a faction, they will begin at 0 standings to that faction.
Corp/Alliance standings are separate from an individuals standings.

Bonus: Notification of FW events, stories missions and choice of inclusion in all parts/roles of FW Corp/Alliance, Parts/roles of importance depends on standings/Devs/and how much ingenuity a Corp/Alliance has. (This does not include an individuals FW standing.)

0.Sovereignty can be claimed from 0.4 Sec Space to 0.0 Space.
A Corp/Alliance CEO can go to is office and make a claim on any system that is not in 0.5 Security Space or higher and as long as the Corp/Alliance has more than 30 members.

Sovereignty 0.1/Faction Sovereignty 0.1

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.

Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system.
1% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.1 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.1.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Sovereignty 0.2 /Faction Sovereignty 0.2 [Maximum Sovereignty for 0.4 Sec]

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.
Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (2 days) in that system.
2% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.2 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.2.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Sovereignty 0.3 /Faction Sovereignty 0.3

Must have a higher kill to death efficiency rating (against other claimants and Player Character faction enemies) than all other claimants (if any) for that system.
Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (3 days) in that system.
3% reduction in the cost for station services in that system (if any)

Faction Warfare Bonus:
Recognized on the map as the Corp/Alliance ELECT (1 day) in that system for your faction.
If Corp/Alliance standings are below 0.3 for to your Faction, your standings will raise to 0.3.
2% reduction in the cost for station services (if any) in that system, if you are in your factions space

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Bar Salt

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:16:00 +0000

Just a quick question.

Does anyone think that the network idea is a bad idea?

Originally by: Archivian Specialatus
I think this could help with Factional warfare, especially if you make the network race specific or give a bonus to if all the ships you use in the network are the same race.
Ship Network Links

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by UniqPhoenix

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:45:00 +0000

Edited by: UniqPhoenix on 17/11/2007 11:45:50
My ideas about FW:

Each faction has its own security status for each system, from 1.0 to 0.0 depending on forces/stations in that system and the opposing faction has from 0.0 UP TO 1.0 respectively (areas currently 0.0 would stay that for all main factions (maybe not pirates)). The 1.0 areas are the "main base" of that faction, and will be defended at all costs. The systems with sec 0.0 - 0.6 are the main (but not only) warzone.

A new column in overview, as wide as the icon column, shows faction icon.

There should be a system for ranks, which might also give a new use for tags.

Active mission system: for example, you get a mission to scout a 0.5 (with 0.4 or smaller CONCORD sec status) system's asteroid belts (or even if you don't get a mission). You find some enemys, and you can try to get rid of them yourself or you can ask the agent for backup (needs a system to send info about the number and level of enemys), in which case other players would get a new mission in a list (which should updates in real time) and can choose to help you (if noone accepts the mission, agent sends some NPCs when possible).

The rewards would depend on what is achieved and will be split between every1 involved (even NPCs) according to damage done/how much helped, higher ranked players get a bonus (so you CAN ask for a fleet to kill 3 weak enemys, but there really is no real reward left if its split to 40, and for Carrier pilots such missions aren't worth much anyway).

Travelling through systems is allowed for anyone, but if you get attacked in a system which has a low sec status for your faction AND for CONCORD, then noone might help you out. If you get attacked by another faction in a system which has a high sec status by your faction, then some NPC's would help you.

Docking in enemy faction's station is possible, but Station services are unavailable and using market has a small extra tax (0-3% depending on station level/importance).

Bonuses from your faction: 1-5% Cheaper skill books which are your faction's and if you buy from/to your factions station. Also clone upgrades would be a bit cheaper. Smaller taxes for goods from your faction and higher for goods from enemy faction.

Changing side/quiting a faction should be possible, but not immidiate, otherwise people could chicken out when they are losing and get CONCORD's help. Maybe it would take 1 day?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:27:00 +0000

DEVS DONT SKIP OVER THIS ONE!!!

After reading Goumindong from Goonswams post and his post at the start of this thread.

I had a bunch of ideas that sprang from his main idea in his post.

So I just threw it together and put it in the link below, because i couldnt fit it all in one post.

I think this idea Solves: (the ones in Bold I think ties in to Factional Warfare)
Pos Spaming (well thats of that post i read)
More varied types of POS sieges
Links Faction warfare with PVP and Soveignty and still works as a bridge into what the devs seemed to have wanted in their DEV blog (part of that was from the post i read aswell)
More to do in a POS fight: Which can extend to FW missions to give out with a little imagination.
Helps break down the blobbing a bit, and pushes for simultainius POS sieging.
Somthing to do after constilation Sov
Something for the smaller corps to do
Makes smaller forces and ships matter in a POS fight
Some benefits for super empires (BOB/GOONS/RA etc)
Ways for small corps to try and be recognized (Pirates/RP/AntiPorates etc)
Additions for bounty hunters.
More insentive for pew pew.
RP will have more mechanics to work with with Factional RP
PVPers will have more mechanics to work with with Factional RP
Sovereignty and Factional warfare can be interlinked for small corps all the way to renting systems to the Amarr empire by the huge corps.
Lots of mechanics to intoduce the fiction/RP side of factional warfare.
Lots of mechanics to give people a chance to join in factional warfare on many levels.

Well its something I think could work anyways.

Somthing I forgot to add in the Main Link below:
Additional note to Faction warfare section:

Faction standings are separate from corporate standings.

Example:
You are allied to Amarr, and your life long alliance allies are allied with Minmatar. Your Alliance Standings will remain positive but your Faction standing (which is separate) will be negative.
The will show up as Blue, Red. An Enemy Alliance who is with an Enemy Faction will be Red, Red. An allied alliance with an allied Faction will be Blue, Blue. And an Enemy Alliance with an Allied Faction will be Red, Blue.

Killing a Blue, Red or a Red, Red will earn your Alliance standings LP.
Killing a Blue, Blue or a Blue, Red will Lose your Alliance Stanings and LP.

Additional note for Sov 1 faction Bonus:
Faction enemies = Players that are Faction Enemies, not NPCs.

Most of you wont read this but i would like to hear some feed back.

-----------> Link to my post <----------------

thanks forum buddies

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Hyakuchan

Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:33:00 +0000

Edited by: Hyakuchan on 15/11/2007 19:33:51
One thing I'd like to see as part of factional warfare is a special "one-per-account" faction charter reward that allows indefinite operation of an empire POS in one faction's space with moon mining capacity, available after months and years of war activities for that faction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:46:00 +0000

Ushtar's post does nicely define the general roles that players could take. Sign me up as an Enlisted.

Enlisteds would be restricted in their general activities, but would gain benefits - influence, standings, rank, and cash. Lots of cash. Whatever the mission reward a freelancer gets, an enlisted should earn at least double the amount, maybe more depending on standings. This makes sense from an RP perspective - you are trying to convince capsuleers to abandon the freedom they enjoy and joint the military. Giant gobs of cash should do the trick.

To prevent people from signing up as an enlisted to earn quick cash, they should have to sign contracts to serve for a specified time period - say, 3 months. At the end of each time period, you can choose to renew your active-duty contract, enter the reserves, or resign entirely.

If you renew your active-duty contract, you gain an immediate improvement to rank and pay. You are also committed to serve for another 3 months. This may be the most common choice.
Entering the reserves means that you no longer wish to serve on active duty, but you are still on call if your country needs you. You retain your rank, but cannot call on its privileges. Reservists will recieve mission requests from time to time, and turning them down drops your standings. However, reservists can resume "normal" careers, so long as they do their required missions, and do not work for rival factions. While on these missions, it is as if they are on active duty - they can pull rank.
Resigning means you want out of this damn war. You take a standings hit, and your rank vanishes. However, if you join an allied faction, the standings hit is negated. For instance, if a Minmatar pilot serving in the Federal Navy decides to go home and join the Republic Fleet, he will not lose standings with the Federal Navy.

And one other thing - capsuleers are excused from missions if they are not in pod at the time. They will be assigned a mission when they return to pod. This is so that FW players who must take a break from EVE for RL reasons can do so without losing standings.

Finally, Enlisteds cannot be members of corporations or alliances that have not sworn allegiance to the right faction. Your corp/alliance membership shows your ultimate loyalty, and if your corp/alliance is not allied to your faction, you are not ultimately loyal to that faction. This will prevent a corp/alliance from having members join both factions and screw everyone over. Not even the Amarr are stupid enough to allow pilots of questionable loyalty to serve in the military. Of course, an alliance - even a 0.0 one - could declare allegiance to one side. I imagine the CVA will declare allegiance to the Amarr Empire in a hurry.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.

The True Meaning of Freedom

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:52:00 +0000

Ship networking continued

Ship Network Link Modules:

Skill Tree: Ship Networking

Electronics 5
Electronic Upgrades5
Ship Networking 1(Rank 5)

Standard Link Module Stats:

Fitting:
Power grid Output: 2
CPU Output: 3000
Hi slot

Structure:
Capacity: 50m3

Miscellaneous:
Activation Cost: 50
Activation time/ duration: 10secs
Optimal Range: 10km

Skill Bonus: 20% to link module optimal range per level

Cannot put more than one Link module on a ship.

Penalty:Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized

Industrial Link Module Stats:

Fitting:
Power grid Output: 2
CPU Output: 3000
Hi slot

Structure:
Capacity: 50m3

Miscellaneous:
Activation Cost: 50
Activation time/ duration: 10secs
Optimal Range: 10km

Skill Bonus: 20% to link module optimal range per level

Cannot put more than one Link module on a ship.

Penalty:Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized

Mining Link Module Stats:

Fitting:
Power grid Output: 2
CPU Output: 3000
Hi slot

Structure:
Capacity: 50m3

Miscellaneous:
Activation Cost: 50
Activation time/ duration: 10secs
Optimal Range: 10km

Skill Bonus: 20% to link module optimal range per level

Cannot put more than one Link module on a ship.

Penalty:Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized

Exumer Link Module Stats:

Fitting:
Power grid Output: 2
CPU Output: 3000
Hi slot

Structure:
Capacity: 50m3

Miscellaneous:
Activation Cost: 50
Activation time/ duration: 10secs
Optimal Range: 10km

Skill Bonus: 20% to link module optimal range per level

Cannot put more than one Link module on a ship.

Penalty:Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Archivian Specialatus

Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:51:00 +0000

I think this could help with Factional warfare, especially if you make the network race specific or give a bonus to if all the ships you use in the network are the same race.
Ship Network Links

This is an idea that will appeal to most types of people who play the game in one form or another. PvP,RP and Mission runners mainly but also traders and miners.

With good organization, FC's of all types of gangs have more ways to show their commanding skills and planning.

This idea helps to:
Concentrate a little more on individual squads.
Adds a wealth of new tactics and customization.
Benefits the imaginative player/s.
fun for noobs and a world of options for hardcore players
A Reward for Role players who use only one races technology.
helps to take a step toward faction warfare.
If Pilots/FC's/anyone else who gives orders really know what they are doing, they can really use the potential of it all.
Adds a new dimention for mission runners.

What are Ship Network Modules and Link Ships? & Why would you use Ship Them?

How does the system work?

Amarr Link Ships

Frigate
Cruisers
Battle Cruiser

Battleships
Industrial Ships
Transport Ships

Caldari Link Ships

Frigate
Cruiser
Battle Cruiser
Battleship
Industrial

Transport

Gallent

Frigate
Cruiser
Battle Cruiser
Battleship
Industrial
Transport

Minmatar
Frigate
Cruiser
Battle Cruiser
Battleship
Industrial
Transport

Mining
Mining Ships
Exumers

Continue in next post

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jason Edwards

Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:00:00 +0000

I think my home in the stars right now actually has tainted the place that I might have taken in factional warfare before. I'm currently living very close to gallente space while in amarr space. My area would certainly become pretty heavy for factional warfare I suspect.

I very much like Eshud Uktar's post. I'm afraid I would have to be a freelancer... one who occasionally dabbles in factional warfare.

I love the ideas obviously. Honestly instead of making hi sec systems into low sec... they should just seem like low sec in terms of factional warfare. Perhaps even by declaring your side on factional warfare it dynamically changes the eve universe.

Say for example you choose Gallente as your faction that you fight for. ALL of amarr space and caldari space should suddenly become 0.0 and the corporations which belong to those empires become your enemy so you cannot even dock in their systems.

Theoretically it should even be possible to go to an enemy faction system which one might consider usually a 1.0 sec system and plop down a pos. The problem here though is that soon as you start anchoring the message and everything informs those in that system/constellation. It may even dispatch npc ships to go attack you.

I don't like the idea of black-op stargates. Frankly they should close a huge majority of stargates which link between enemy factions. Furthermore once you declare your faction side... you should be very limited in allowance to going to the enemy factions. The standing with yourself, your corp has with the enemy faction obviously needs to be taken into account.

Such as -2 standing to the enemy faction means absolutely no going to the other faction. Furthermore doing any sort of action against the enemy faction has extremely significant negative effects and well it'll be extremely quick and easy to get to -2 very easily.

For example. -2 faction standing currently means no 1.0 systems. you have no problem going to .9 systems. However if you have -2 amarr faction and have declared gallente your faction. You goto some .5 system owned by amarr; You blink red to everyone. While you may only attack those only that are actively involved as enemies in factional warfare.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Trazec

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:29:00 +0000

What I want is the possibility for a 4-7 people group making a surprise raid on a bigass starbase or something like that. Think Battlestar Galactica season 1, episode 10 - The Hand of God and you get the idea. Only replace the Vipers with a couple EVE ships. I want Tactical targets that will, for example, disable a couple defense batteries , thus making the assault easier for the raiders.

Perhaps I am getting carried away, but you should see my point. This is what I would think would create EVE version Awesome. ;)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TjediAI

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:11:00 +0000

i wanna fight on rogue drone faction side....

and wanna rogue drone faction ships (drone controler Urrr)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Red Shkyrko

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:10:00 +0000

Edited by: Red Shkyrko on 10/11/2007 18:13:29

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Eshud Uktar

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:25:00 +0000

(continued)

If you get tired of active duty or you need to go undercover into enemy territory for whatever reason, you can go on leave.
While on leave you appear to be a civilian in a default corp; however you will still have your faction tag on you so if anyone scans you with a ship scanner they will see whether or not you're truly neutral to their faction, and as a result you will immediately go back into active duty. This can lead to interesting situations if you're an undercover agent for Republic Fleet and a group of Amarr navy players scans you at a gate deep in Amarr territory. If you're war torn and can't take any more you can retire, leaving the force to walk your own path.

I feel that to make faction wars truly Faction Wars it is important that the faction players fly faction ships belonging to their faction to maintain the identity and roleplay within the faction. I think this can only be done if all ships you see npc's fly around with are released to those that enlist. As a Serpentis commander you should be able to fly a silver-black serpentis Domi, or a Republic Fleet sergeant fly a fleet Rifter with razorfins. To balance these new Faction Wars ships so that each faction can fly as seen in Revelation II trailer without obvious advantages or disadvantages, the ships come free of any racial bonuses but are fitted with two extra rig slots and some extra pwg and cpu (alternatively, they could keep some or all racial bonuses but with one extra rigslot). The goal is to make these ships more versatile, less predictable and allow each faction to better counter other factions generic tactics.

The faction ships and equipment are purchased for the set base fee and a low amount of LP, and are dna-coded to the enlisted pilot which means it's can't be sold or traded to other players. Those on leave or retired will not be able to use the faction ship/equipment they procured while in service. It can be handed in to the npc's for the same amount they bought it for, minus the LP.
Freelancers should be limited to what they have available today.

My hopes are that Empire today will be the 0.0 of tomorrow.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Eshud Uktar

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:24:00 +0000

Faction Wars should not be just something you do when you're bored between mining and ratting.
I would like to see a new type of player in the game. Faction Wars is an excellent opportunity to make players into permanent event characters guided by Aurora.

I see three types of players in Faction Wars:

Civilians - Those in starting/default corps
Freelancers - Those in player corporations, with or without Alliance membership
Enlisted - Those who pledge allegiance to a factions fighting forces

Freelancers play the traditional game and participate in FW when they feel like it. As long as they keep an eye on their standings they will be more or less safe in Empire. Civilians are free to go wherever they please, fully protected by Concord.

Why Enlist?

Enlisted will be engulfed in an endless war against both players and npc's, fighting for the glory of the state. They will get their missions from FW mission boards that are updated once per month by Aurora (superior officers), with feedback from last months missions.

The missions are handed out to those with high enough clearance based on their rank within the military. Missions should be both combat and non-combat in nature and be ongoing until the player chooses to complete/end it or it is made impossible to continue by the enemies. Examples would be simple patrol missions, hauling, scanning suspicious players, POS building/killing, mining, faction ship building, small pvp raids to large-scale warfare, all with various "difficulty" levels (i.e. inside or outside friendly territory).

The enlisted's rank will be displayed on their dog tags and can only be looted if the player is pod-killed. These can then be handed in for much more money and LP than for just destroying the enemy ship.

I would also like to see a new black-ops feature of player-built stargates only accessible by those with the right dogtag. The tricky part would be to build them unnoticed in enemy territory. These gates can even allow the enemies a one-time access through the gate as long as they get their hands on the right tag.

(continued)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Eshud Uktar

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 17:18:00 +0000

My thoughts about Faction Wars are that it can't be made lightly.
Introducing a few WoW-style battlegrounds in low-sec simply isn't enough. It must be a war that rages across all of EVE, high sec as well as low sec. All factions must be included since the pirate factions have their own agendas that certainly will affect the big empires in their war efforts.

Faction standing must be a vital consideration when determining whether or not players are allowed into a factions territory, let alone dock at one of their stations. I suggest that stations get a clearance level where some are more public than others.

The players must be able to see and feel that faction wars affect their lives whether or not they choose to participate.
Systems change hands through warfare or simply lack of proper logistics, and I suggest that each Empire be counted from a core, where the main system is in the centre and the constellations closest to the core will be permanent (say half of each empire). The rest are conquerable by the other factions.

Borders between the empires should be made low sec.
Not only because it enhances the game for all players but it wouldn't fit the story, imo. My reasoning behind this is that the empires can't stretch their forces like they used to, but must concentrate them closer to their respective cores to defend more strategic systems.

Concord was made to serve the Empires, not the other way around.
It is the empires that fund their operation and I think that the empires would rather use most of that money to fund their wars. Concord's role would therefore be reduced and with no power to interfere with the fighting Empire forces. Concord are there to keep the peace between civilians and to keep pirate factions out of space where they have jurisdiction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rod Blaine

Fri, 9 Nov 2007 21:57:00 +0000

k, just in case you didn't quite notice in like, 2005 when i spent some time yappin about it on here, or 2006 and 2007 when i spent too much damn time yapping about people yappin about this stuff here as well, read the damn blog in my signature.

thank you.

btw, i quit, i don't actually care, just being nasty cause my accounts still active tause i got lazy on the direct debit.

[center]
Old blog

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Snowcrash Winterheart2

Fri, 9 Nov 2007 06:15:00 +0000

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Princess Jodi

Thu, 8 Nov 2007 22:45:00 +0000

Edited by: Princess Jodi on 08/11/2007 22:53:47
Edited by: Princess Jodi on 08/11/2007 22:53:15
edit]Edited by: Princess Jodi on 08/11/2007 22:52:03
This came up in a discussion about T2 components being maxed out due to limited Moon Minerals:

Make one of the bonuses of Factional Warfare the ability to Moon Mine in the Empire's space.

Link to T2 Component Discussion

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Romulus Byers

Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:31:00 +0000

would factional warfare interfere with multiracial corps? or do you think it would encourage people to side with their own kind.

if CCP is considering this, they are RACIST!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Don Z0LA

Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:35:00 +0000

Originally by: Axel Vindislaga
The role of CONCORD is clearly critical. Rather than dissolved CONCORD's role needs to be boosted. The engagements would be illegal. The hardliners bent on war would be people like MILOSOVIC in Serbia.

why do you talk about things you have nfi about ?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by The RAv3n

Tue, 6 Nov 2007 02:13:00 +0000

Edited by: The RAv3n on 06/11/2007 02:13:25
I think it would be kinda cool to have it so
1) You could bribe with ISK and goods to raise your security status with certain factions.

2) I dislike the idea of having to venture into lowsec to have war. Perhaps certain areas can become battlegrounds, wrought with confusion and destruction, fighting could occur kinda like the beacons in the test severs. Even more so, it would be great to have war anywhere. In a way the EVE universe is entering a time of war, more items need to be built, neutral factions are safe areas but all around it is quite deadly. Imagine what will happen to Jita? The center of trade could be shut down, that would be interesting make the economy much more important to study. Then players could fight against the captures to gain it back along side some Caldari battleships (maybe we could be given ships for an important battle, imagine the turnout),

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ed Anger

Tue, 6 Nov 2007 01:58:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The initial release is definitely not intended as a tool to give 0.0 Alliances more power/influence in lowsec. Maybe at some point in the future Alliances will be able to attack the Empires directly, but for now this isn't part of the game plan.

in fact, it would be more interesting to create some rules that promote smaller corps owning some space in low sec -- ie not letting any corp in an alliance owning a low sec station, and not letting any corp own more then one station for example. leaving the fleet warfare in 0.0.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kirrean

Fri, 2 Nov 2007 00:02:00 +0000

Edited by: Kirrean on 02/11/2007 00:06:21
This may be an easy fix but not cheap one. I speak out of ignorance when it comes to computer technology and server technology. I do not know if my suggestion would require seperate accounts. ECT.

I understand that there is a test server that players can get on and they have access to their accounts in a restricted sense. Do the same for FW.

Have a seperate server that account holders can log onto and...

- Re aling their character to the faction they want to assist by leaving corp/alliance
- Have their standings reset to choice faction...only affected on said server
- Faction provide all ships and modules that one is able to use
1) Fighters fit their ships and fight
2) Industrialists start producing/inventing for their faction
3) Miners start mining
- All rewards stay on server because the rewards are using all the goodies the faction has

Once again I do not know if this is feasible. I think this would allow all to jump in and get a feel if they want to do it frequently or not. But if one hears that ones race is being decimated in the FW server one can log off Non-FW server and jump in to boost ones faction numbers.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:54:00 +0000

With the status that capsuleers carry, having them under the field command of a non-capsuleer would not make sense. However, allowing capsuleers to command non-capsuleers would make sense.

One form of this would be bringing support on a mission. Players might be assigned a specific type of support depending on the mission on a mission to bring down a transport, NPC tackling ships might be provided (with the player expected to bring the firepower). These ships will accompany the player, and be controlled similarly to drones, only with more complicated orders possible. It will be necessary to create an AI that can fight effectively and coordinate with allied players.

Veterans (not only those who have been involved for a long time, but those who were doing missions for a faction before the war) should be able to use their clout to requisition specific units. Loyalty points might be the currency, but standings with specific NPC officers should play a significant role.

Here is an example. A player fighting for the Amarr Empire (lets call him Archbishop) is assigned to destroy a Minmatar outpost. Archbishop organizes a small gang. However, he knows that a gang of Minmatar pilots flying their new Tribal Tempests are active, and he wont be able to destroy the outpost with his gang before they show up and turn him and his ships into scrap. Fortunately, one of the pilots in the gang, Gaven Lokri, has been flying missions for the Amarr Imperial Navy since the dawn of time, has about twenty bajillion LP with them, and signed up the day the war began. More importantly, Gaven is good friends with Admiral Kalash Sarum, a big-time Amarrian admiral. Gaven uses his considerable clout with the good admiral to requisition a dozen NPC Abaddons, adding critical firepower that will allow the Amarr to blow up the outpost before the Minnies arrive.

There should also be mission types apart from direct combat. Escort duties, transporting vital war materiel or VIPs from place to place, scouting operations... anything where success is critical, a capsuleer is the man for the job.

And as for the threat of motherships ganking FW ships? I have two words for that: NPC dreadnoughts. Lots of them.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.

The True Meaning of Freedom

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nachshon

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:54:00 +0000

About 0.0 alliances deccing empires... I am of the opinion that if this happens, the war within empire would quickly become EVE's equivalent of World War II - that is, where pretty much the entire friggin cluster has chosen a side. With CVA in the Coalition, I'd expect the Coalition to side with the Amarr/Caldari, while Bob & Co join the Minmatar and Gallente.

And I would request that pilots not be required to use ships of the race which they are fighting for. Perhaps you could require, however, that a pilot mark his ships with national insignia. I want to confuse my foes when my Drake bearing the flag of the Republic starts spewing missiles.
____________________________________
Caldari by birth, Minmatar by citizenship.

The True Meaning of Freedom

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sylfamas

Mon, 29 Oct 2007 01:01:00 +0000

But to be truely awsome , you must make so that the factions economy has to suffer. For example Band of Brothers stop flying in circles and go to war against Caldari. In turn, caldari space becomes a rubble and a living hell for players of that faction. This would intrigue new war between alliances and corporations, to help caldari from going into the dust. The conclusion would be a slow reconstruction of the caldari state. Of course this would be like an Armaggedon war where everyone has to suffer the consequences. But it would be pvp and role-play all-in-one. Of course this is a draft idea but you get the point.

And i'm sorry if anyone has already said that.
-----------------Signature-------------------------

I only have one rule: Everyone fights, no one quits.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by ViperVenom

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:52:00 +0000

OK i have some simple questions.

1) If the FW will only be in lowsec is there going to be a special jump gate to get to the combat?
2) If the combat is in lowsec and lowsec only will the player FW be able to get ganked by Pirates or Players?

3) Will there be a agro timer?

Boo CCP!!!!

--CCP is run by Bush/Cheany--

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Myadra

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:45:00 +0000

hmmm, is this being done only for the 4 main empire factions again like COSMOS, then a afterthought added for 0.0 factions? doesmt make sense to do for the 4 empire ones and not pirate ones as well, angel, gurista, blood, sansha, serpentis, at least the 5 main pirate factions should be done as well.

I did a whole post how 0.0 cosmos content, actually sucked compared to empire, we need more content in 0.0/low sec and less in high sec for empire huggers.

-Banner coming-
Back from long break

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by DorXtar

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:44:00 +0000

I haven't read the whole thread, so if I repeat someone else's ideas or suggestions, please bear with me.

I envision factional warfare as missions with real effect. Right now, the only in-game effects that can be had are with 0.0 sovereignty.

Factional warfare will be like the 0.0 wars of sovereignty, but with NPC's in empire. Imagine getting a faction mission that is taking place in real-time. Where a call to arms is made to every loyal faction citizen, a call that calls for assembly of combat ships at a certain area in 15 to 30 minutes. To defend, attack, or escort a convoy that actually carries something of value to the faction's overall success.

When I first started playing this game, I didn't think of creating or joining one of the many corporations made by fellow players. I wanted to join an NPC corp and fight for my side. Factional warfare will be a blessing in disguise. It will give new players an opportunity to be involved and affect the bigger picture of eve, instead of having to mission mindlessly, mine, or just be a general carebear until they feel comfortable enough to either venture into lowsec or 0.0 or join a corp that is based there.

Factional warfare will allow new players to feel like they're making a difference from day one of their eve experience. They'll get to fight other players, fight alongside other players they've never met, all for the same cause. Many may even rise to prominence in the factional fleets, a prominence that will not simply yield better agents and rewards, but NPC helpers at first, and entire NPC fleets at their command later on.

In the case of NPC helpers and fleets, players would be rewarded for keeping their NPC wingmates alive. The NPC would gain experience with every successful engagement, much like other helpful NPC's in other MMORPG's. As the player gains standings, reputation, and success on the battlefield, they get more and more NPC's, and soon, an entire fleet of ships is assembled.

Players can make entire careers around factional warfare. It wouldn't be carebear, but it wouldn't be exactly PvP. It would be glorious nontheless.

________________________________
It never hurts to help!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sidrat Flush

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:26:00 +0000

When it comes to empire wars, they can be fun. When it comes to pvp battles, the quick, merciless, short ranged webbing solo - pure combat trained pilots, can beat out a marginally trained but crap at fitting combat "student" such as myself. Although my bio says one thing, it doesn't say which percentage of SP's I'm currently using for damage/ship defences and such like.

If only that was in there....

Anyway, that's nothing to do with FW.

Factional warfare sounds like either a) it's going to fall flat on its face, especially when you get a gang of x pilots at a certain time of day succeeding their mission because no RL player have chosed to "defend" - or b) it's going to fall flat on its face because you get a few new and/or in-experienced players warping into a blob of +5 with drones out and weapons hot.

PvP is scarily expensive in Eve. If the Factions want to provide ships and equipment, sign me up. If it has to come out of my pocket, then....maybe I'll just work for an agent and they can keep paying me ISK and LP points instead.

Life is about memories the more the better.
End Slavery.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Roy Gordon

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:34:00 +0000

How about making rewards specific only to faction warfare? My idea would be that you could have a 'Faction LP pool'. Faction missions would reward you with only LP's which are put into this pool. At certain LP levels you will receive specific awards i.e. faction ships, faction mods, medals (Come on, medals have to be included in faction warfare, who would not like having a medal displayed on their character sheet?), military ranking (similar to being awarded a medal) etc.

That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
The Universe is ruled by three basic principles-
Matter, Energy and Enlightened Self-Interest!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Myadra

Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:26:00 +0000

Edited by: Myadra on 25/10/2007 19:28:28
Edited by: Myadra on 25/10/2007 19:27:20

also forgot to add this one i did almost 1 yr ago also, and some of these ideas where somewhat added already, has some better detailed info on faction warfare too:

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=434990

here is copy of it:

Faction warfare.

I think i did a post about this long ago, about adding Devotion points to factions, as added "LP" Loyalty points to agents. anyway, heres a old post i did on it, about 1 year ago.

Link http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=214203

So Being a member of a faction, you get access to better agents, access to rumor agents that give out bookmarks to other factions complex's and offer rewards and "Devotion points" for doing so.

- Access to more agents
- Access to enemys faction complex's for raids
- Devotion points for faction. ie. Blood Covenant.
- Ability to buy BPC/BPO's of faction items with Devotion points
- Ability to enter enemy complex's only if enemy of them.

Disadvantage:

- Anyone of a enemy faction with membership can attack you.
- Loss of standings to enemy factions.

Ability to use faction ships and items, requires standings to that faction, here is plan i made for the ships alone. and idea's of their description and bonus's. view link above, with special faction modded ships example.

Faction warfare:

Also, possibly, each faction would have complex's for their supply, factorys enemy faction players can damage & players of corps loyal to faction would need to repair/defend, and for ships, 100% production meaning you can get faction ship right away...

lower RDP production, means some ships are unavailable or long wait times 1-2 days... etc... missions for factions would involve going to destroy other factions convoys, etc. recon duty, supply missions, etc. make eve alot of fun.

give ranking and ranks to players in factions. use ISD/Aurora to run the high command of factions, and/or even players to plan & run events and objectives and give players rewards.... like going to caldari system and destroying a supply depot, the caldari faction members would get notification and objective is placed on it, a mini-war would ensue. and gain/loss's for each taking part...

Idea from: 2006.12.01

-Myadra

-Banner coming-
Back from long break

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Myadra

Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:17:00 +0000

here is a post i made 2 years ago with some idea's on factional warfare, way before anyone ever mentioned it

http://myeve.eve-online.com/iNgameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=214203

thought it might be easyeir to post a link than a big long post here too.. hope some devs actually read it this time..

-Myadra

-Banner coming-
Back from long break

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Adunh Slavy

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:25:00 +0000

Long ago, year and a half maybe, I started a thread about what Id like to see, but I cant find it. Some of what is below has been suggested, so consider them votes for those ideas,

Letters of Marquee A player gets his letter from the faction and after 24 hours he can shoot at or be shoot at by the opposing factions. A player can resign his letter and after 24 hours he is safe. Resignation of a letter results in the drop of a rank.

Ranks are awarded based kill points. Kill points are determined by the difference in two things the difference in ships used and the difference in skill points between the two pilots. A small ship killing a big ship is worth positive points. A big ship killing a small ship would be zero points. A low SP character blowing up a high SP character gives points. A high SP character blowing up a low SP character gives no points.

Podding is allowed, but podding costs a player half his kill points. If a player has more kill points than his victim, concord will blow up the attacker.

Kill points for individuals are public knowledge show right up there on the character info sheets, next to rank and medals.

Ranks require cumulative kill points. A rank one would cost say 1000 kill points on the record, rank 2 costs 2000, rank three requires 4000, 8000, 16000, etc. Note that this encourages players not to pod as podding will slow down rank gain.

Rank rewards As a players rank goes up, the faction gives the player ships. These ships are special in that each is tagged with a unique ID and only useable by the pilot to whom the ship was awarded. If the ship is destroyed its gone. At the next rank, the player will turn in his old ship and get the next ship. If the previous ship has been destroyed, then the player does not have to turn it in. These ships can NOT be insured, can not be sold, can not be traded and players can not eject from them. If they are factional ships, like a CNR or not, I dont really care.

NPCs, the kind we see floating around gates will shoot at anyone with a letter from an opposing faction. They will however not use that uber scrambler webber deal seems to exist today. The may web and maybe a frig or two will scramble, but that should be it.

Lettered players may NOT shoot at opposing faction pilots within 300 km (same grid) as a gate. Lets not have huge empire gate camps please. let the NPCs guard the gates, and as NPCs can spawn at a whim, they should be sufficient to stop a smaller group, but could be overwhelmed by a large group. A large group will not stick around long though because sentry guns will also get a nice factional warfare buff. They should be destroyable, but respawn. The idea is, let an invader launch a large attack, create a breach, move the fleet through and get on to the next objective as fast as they can before the cavalry arrives. Killing NPC gate guards/guns rewards zero kill points. They are nothing more than an obstacle to overcome, not the goal.

Opposing stations in factional space.(enemy stations in friendly space) They will fire on any lettered player from an opposing faction. They will not have ships guarding them. They are a refuge in hostile space but the are not death stars. Their guns can be destroyed and take a long time to respawn, upwards of a few days. They may provide a refuge for a while, but not forever, they may likely become a death trap.

Faction stations in faction space (friendly stations in friendly space) They will fire on any lettered player from an opposing faction. They are also guarded by the same kind of ships that guard friendly gates. Their guns and ships can be destroyed, but the respawn rate is just a few minutes and behave as gates do for all intensive purposes.

Docking lettered Players of any faction can dock at any factions stations, getting in and out of hostile stations will be the problem. Player wants to dock there, ok sure. Go ahead. Good luck to you however.

-AS

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Braise Erighani

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:06:00 +0000

just as a random thought

why try to bring 0.0 to high sec?

why not bringing high sec to 0.0? through factional warfare, why not make 0.0 safe for a faction?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gragnor

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 02:16:00 +0000

Here's a thought. Feel free to laugh at it.

Eve needs a stock market just like in real life. The trading side to this game is not developing along with pvp aspects of it.

How about you create an Eve stock market and ONLY allow corporations which have entered into faction warfare to use it. The reason is that those corps have agreed to follow the rules associated with factions, which meabs they have sufficient legal standing to trade in that space. In that way the faction corps can play in empire and zero sec space.

Of course, once a corp is aligned with a faction - it could place a station in a low sec for itself, with open acess to all. In this way - role players are encouragd specifically to play a core role in Eve in the development of their faction and have a reason to pvp.

It would also mean the low sec pirates would actually have a real target to fight as an rper who put a station down would have to defend it. Of course, if you lost standings, you lose the station.

As stations are placed on palnets; a factional aligned station would have to maintain moon dominance for that planet and keep its standings up. Of couse, if someone attacked those pos's - the factional aligned navy could spawn to help them plus the normal defence.

To lose a low sec station wiould be the ultimate death for a role player as it means factional warfare would be played out on the same level as zero sec.

The downside would be LAG from hell, but CCP promises us this will be fixed soon(tm).

Just random thoughts.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Pirokobo

Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:57:00 +0000

Edited by: Pirokobo on 17/10/2007 16:03:38
The one problem I see with factional warfare is the degree to which the factions cooperate. The lore would seem to be disjoint about how much each faction hates the others. The Amarr and Minmatar hate each other and this is evidenced by the near total absence of each other's stations in their respective space. The Caldari and Gallente likewise hate each other.

But the lore sometimes suggests an affinity between Gallente and Minmatar, and similiarly between Amarr and Caldari, and a mirror dislike between Minmatar-Caldari and Amarr-Gallente.

These relationships I think are irrelevant in a war sense. Each faction only needs one enemy. Not two.

Further, I think one critical aspect will need to be issuing letters of marque in some way shape or form, so that it becomes COMPLETELY concord-legal to attack convoys and navy ships in empire space (whereas today attacking convoys is a complicated affair). Of course, the spawn rate of convoys will need to be increased.....

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Windryder

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:42:00 +0000

Okay, I just have one stupid question...

How can Factional Warfare work if industrialists do not have the ability to choose to whom they sell - or conversely if pilots cannot choose from whom they buy?

It seems ridiculous to have a system where you might go out to fight for your Faction, destroying the Enemy pilots, only to dock into station and buy all your new gear from corporations allied to that Enemy, thus lining their coffers with Isk and sponsoring their war effort.

If the current anonymous market is to remain we may as well just declare the Caldari victorious because they have the lions share of the economic and industrial power.

As a non-Caldari faction fighter, would you risk losing access to the Jita marketplace? Yes I know, Trading Alts and Gun Runners... but it just strengthens my point that most of the money is going to go to Jita and the Corps aligned with the Caldari Faction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Lux Simian

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:24:00 +0000

Originally by: Callus Tacticus
3.Faction Missions- If you sign up for a Faction, you can gain access to a special set of faction missions. Perhaps it could be missions that send you into the contested areas or into enemy space to complete. I would think there should be some sort of division here between casual Faction Warfarers, and those who wish to Role-play more.

------------a.Maybe you could get them from Officers in space who move around. Similar to COSMOS agents. These would be agents who reside in ships that can be alone or part of fleets. Perhaps there could even be one that sits in a Titan and gives out missions into low sec for players with capital ships or larger gangs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.Faction Officer Modules- Provide Faction Officer modules to players for completing harder objectives in Factional Warfare. Example: Mithoula Tekkan of the Caldari Navy who has a Raven that flies somewhere in the system of Isinokka, patrolling, gives you if you have reached a certain threshold in standings, can give you a Mithoula Tekkans Cruise Missile Launcher. Similar to the COSMOS agents that reportedly will give you a Navy Issue ship if you have very high standings with their faction. This can be incorporated with or without having factional missions. I would like for these Officers to be non-static, and moving, but have a general patrol area that is only a system for lower level officers and a region for high level officers.
Alright that is enough typing for now

---------------------------------------------------------

But I also enjoy the ideas of some rewards that arent as USEFUL, but still would be fun to have as bragging rights, including medals, titles, or even ranks in the factions navy!

I will be back soon with #5 after I finish reading page 2 of this feedback thread.

I particually like the idea of missions being somewhat more open ended than normal missions, allowing also for courier missions (3000 marines need at x, run ammo and kit into a station in the warzone) - which would allow for courier mission players to get involved.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CommanderInChief

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:31:00 +0000

Wont security space basically become redundant?
There will be no safe space to enter, the typical lets wait outside a station and gank any other faction forever syndrome will happen.
A new privateer alliance will form and pew pew everything it can in empire.
I think perhaps a limit on the gang size would be better. Someway of stopping station camping too, nothing worse than sat in a station for weeks because a huge faction has decided to come to take over the system, which no person dare now enter, so your stuck there.
Perhaps it will just become high sec piracy!.

Factional warfare great but make it instanced base, or create/build more 0.0 universe and systems that cannot be claimed etc, its purely for factional warfare. like 0.0 factional battlegrounds

Then people basically have a dedicated battlefield, but then have high space to stay safe if they need to.

There are so many problems with it being eve universe based.

Noobs will join in just for some excitement because they cant get in 0.0 to fight, and some find they are no match for anyone and die quickly, ultimately leaving the game.

If its 0.0 based then you know the risk that you enter you may encounter an enemy faction, having it in empire well you have no idea.

We do not train to be merciful here. Mercy is for the weak. Here, in space, in competition. A man confronts you he is the
enemy. An enemy deserves no mercy

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Blackback Starkiel

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:16:00 +0000

Edited by: Blackback Starkiel on 12/10/2007 12:16:18

Originally by: Drethon
[...] As they begin to loose systems some of the offense is pulled back and the defense becomes concentrated. As they come down to a few systems left, each system would be defended by fleets large enough to scare even BoB and these fleets would push back out hard enough to reconquer quite a bit of space. This would allow the various warring factions to push back and forth though low sec.

Similar ideas has been suggested earlier in the thread, but I like it nevertheless. I get this vision of jumping into a system suddenly coming upon two NPC Titans and a full sky of super capitals eyeing me suspiciously ...
.
Blackback

Holographic gallery of my artwork

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Drethon

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:06:00 +0000

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but an option to allow for conquerable stations in FW is vary concentration of NPC response inversely based on how many low sec (or even high) systems they own.

The idea is when they have an even number of systems, the NPCs are spread out with an offensive push in one area and defense in another. As they begin to loose systems some of the offense is pulled back and the defense becomes concentrated. As they come down to a few systems left, each system would be defended by fleets large enough to scare even BoB and these fleets would push back out hard enough to reconquer quite a bit of space. This would allow the various warring factions to push back and forth though low sec.

Also to handle people docking, systems that have been held longer than a week or month would have good security set up and would stop ships with low enough standings. Systems that have only recently been conquered, on the other hand, would not have good security in place so as long as you don't shoot any ships while in the system, they will let you dock.

My 0.02ISK

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by J'Mkarr Soban

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:30:00 +0000

Originally by: Adhar Khorin
Has there been any consideration toward allowing a FW pilot to "call in support" from the faction navy to defend sovereign space?

The amount of support (ie, NPC naval vessels) that you'd be able to call in would depend on your standing, and could also cost standing and/or LP to (literally) call in the favor. It would also introduce one hell of an element of surprise when you're defending your own turf. Invaders see small gang, engage said gang, and then NPC navy shows up to the party.

What this man said. That would add such a level of immersion it would be untrue. Of course, the cost of calling in that favour would have to change depending on how far you are from friendly space

Which makes me wonder - will there be a secondary level of 'security level' for the systems? Something to represent contested space.

-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Haas Tabris

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:37:00 +0000

I know I'm late to the party (been too busy pvp'ing to read the forums lately), but I have a real simple idea for this FW stuff...

You sign on as a privateer with one of the factions. You can only sign on with one. That faction is at war with one or more of the other 3 factions. You can now freely attack pilots who have signed on as privateers with the warring factions.

Think of it like another wardec system, except instead of between corps, it's between faction pilots. You can opt in (get your letter of marque) and opt out (resign your commission) anytime. And get this, with the new killmail system, ranks and rewards and medals could be achieved by number of kills or killpoints. And with eve voice it would be pretty easy to round up a raiding party from whoever was online (in your faction) and go hit some enemy systems looking for faction targets. Heck, even give us a faction channel (for everyone who's opted in) to make finding a group and a fight easier.

Do it this way and empire PVP (aka FW) takes off like a crow with domination overdrives. :-) You might even rival world pvp in warcraft before they introduced battlegrounds, and man, that was hella fun.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ris Dnalor

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:26:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

I know it's a nightmare to think of from your end, but if Amarr and Minmatar go to war and there is an Amarr station in Empire Hi sec, I see that the Republic fleet would plunder it and either destroy or capture it. They have soveriengty and could revoke the station rights to exist there.

In lo sec, The empires do not patrol their low sec areas with npc ships, so it could be arguable that they might exist, at least for a awhile, unchanged. that could go either way.

It would be a hardship on players that don't want to participate in the factional warfare if you go changing ownership of stations.

What I want to know is how much Concord will charge the Republic per week when we war dec Amarr ;)

--
Talking in Circles is more dizzying than walking in them...

Tralala

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Slvr Foxx

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:12:00 +0000

Originally by: Justen Kase
Can't see see any need for any of this. Thank God it's optional and for me, non-existent. Would really like to CCP spend some time on something other than dreaming up more ways to do PvP. Put Pew Pew in low sec and 0.0, kick the gankers and ore thieves out of empire and all will be well.

I guess that's one for the "cons"...

The reason for doing this as far as I can see is that people who are in a 0.0 corp and alliance like myself and many others, know that being in a corp or alliance in 0.0 isn't all about being up to shoot eachother in PVP, there ane many more aspects in 0.0 life other that shooting stuff such as diplomacy between other corps and alliances, logistics and mining on a major scale for either ice fuels for POS's or minerals to start station/capitla ship production. As soon as you get to 0.0 things become more political and territory related, especially part of a major alliance, but not always enters a conflict phase. So PVP is hit and miss at times, and mobilization of a major force for engaugment is a tactical nightmare.

So the devs are trying to set up a pick up your ship and go type of PVP that is accessable to everyone who does want to go PVP and doesn't want to get blasted by the empire - 0.0 blob bubble camp. So by setting up a designated "fight club navy" as it would seem to be, the only people that you can fight will be the opposing people who want to fight in enemy faction. The main part of PVP that upsets everyone is the people who want pew pew are not finding opposing people, but instead picking on every stray noob in low sec to satisfy thier blood lust. The irony of it is the noobs are also upset from thier loss of thier ship and wish the PVP'ers would attack other willing PVP'ers. The factional warfare idea is a good one, and needs alot of discussion, please everyone, let me know what you think of my pervious long post on my ideas list... Make any sense?

Slvr Foxx

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Justen Kase

Tue, 9 Oct 2007 21:44:00 +0000

Can't see see any need for any of this. Thank God it's optional and for me, non-existent. Would really like to CCP spend some time on something other than dreaming up more ways to do PvP. Put Pew Pew in low sec and 0.0, kick the gankers and ore thieves out of empire and all will be well.

I guess that's one for the "cons"...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Aki Yamato

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:48:00 +0000

I haven't read whole 9 pages so I'm sorry if similar idea is already written down.

Ranking&reward system
IMO faction warfare should bring similar ranking system as WOW has. I'm sure that system is well known for most people here so I wont describe it. Important thing is that by killing opposite faction ships pilots and installations you get a rank.

Now reward part:
For each rank your faction will pay daily/weekly certain amount of equipment points (EP).
For these EP you can buy in special faction stores standard ships ammo modules ETC. (just like in real army).
Goal is to liberate PVP pilots from mindless rating, pointless mission running, simply all foking PVM.

BIG GUN
BIG FUTURE

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Slvr Foxx

Mon, 8 Oct 2007 11:47:00 +0000

Faction warfare... now this sounds cool.

Here are my ideas on this subject.

* Specific factional corporations might have to be created for the purpurse of the warfare... For example "Caldari Navy Combat Wing" and "Gallante Navy Combat Wing" this will give them the freedom to attack any opposing faction who they are at war with, like war declaration, including empire space. (perhaps not in 1.0 - 0.9 space though to give a retreat location)

* The storyline dictated by the Game devs would govern who each faction is at war with, would be great to have an in depth storyline that involves players and NPC players.

* Upon entering the NPC factional war corp, they are given a Naval type rank. The more targets shot down, the higher the rank, probably relating to the amount of collateral damage they have caused. This will stop people from bunny hopping up ranks with alt popping.

* The higher the rank, the more prestige in the kill, demotion for too many failiures would be inevitable, but people with higher ranks could be mentioned in the storylines by the devs for further infamy.

* All gang related kills should be split equally in terms of glory and rank increase, not just the person who laid the final blow. Splitting the collateral damage toll means no one gets left behind in terms of promotion and rank increase.

* perhaps rewards and such given out in forms of medals and commendation such.

* Wars in empires could create alot of lag, so a new form interdiction device could be launched like a "War bubble", that can only be launched away from gates and stations that only draw in opposing war factions out of warp, leaving other players to go about buisness.

* Something could be done with the low sec aspect of things so factional capital ship warfare could happen, maybe strategical pos's that devs could place form time to time that only waring factions could siege, maybe a ded space or something that only the waring factions can warp and cyno too. The devs would corp mail as part of a storyline that if the siege is successful for either side, i/e defence OR attack, good rank increases and reward will be given. No penalty will be incurred for a loss.

* For higher ranking players, they might have authority over operations and how they are carried out, like alliance leaders and CEO's do now.

* Firing upon a civillian will mean concord and NPC navy's get involved, also a massive drop in status and rank. Continuing misconduct will reult in dishonerable discharge out of faction corp and unable to rejoin any faction war corp for a set amount of time.

* Ranks would be assessed mointhly, for example would backdate 30 days and work out how much damage in terms of isk has been dealt, like how killboards work.

Well, thats it for now.

Slvr Foxx

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Spoon Thumb

Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:42:00 +0000

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 07/10/2007 19:44:12

ok, so maybe I'm replying a little late, but hopefully still get seen for FW Mk. II

Differentiate sub-factions / intra-faction corps. So have a second tier where you can align yourself to say "Khanid Navy" or "House Sarum" within the overall "Amarr" faction. Give Lai Dai leaning players slightly different objectives within the same mission (So "retrieve the Stolen Datacores as well and we'll pay you double!" . Also give different rewards based on sub-faction / faction-corp. E.g. Atm, Khanid Navy BCS is exactly the same stats as Caldari Navy one. Make one have say uber fittings and the other have better RoF but both do same dmg % bonus

For those who have flagged themselves as being aligned to a faction, make them auto join the "Minmatar Special Ops" chat channel or whatever. Creates an "official" chat for coordinating stuff in a similar manner to alliance and corp chats, with players able to still go off and organise groups themselves in their own channels

Khaldari
In-game channel: khanidpublic

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Roy Gordon

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:24:00 +0000

I dont know if it has been covered yet, but one idea would be to have key systems in each empire which are designated as 'faction combat zones'. They would be a bit like gladatorial area's if you like. Ships of opposing factions will not have standing loss or incur Concord retribution if they attack each other in those systems. For example- System A is designated as a 'faction combat zone' as its a border system between the Caldari and Gallente. In this system Gallente players can fire on Caldari players without penalty and viz versa. Other race ships who fire on Caldari or Gallente ships in this area will suffer the usual consequences.
That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
The Universe is ruled by three basic principles-
Matter, Energy and Enlightened Self-Interest!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ejderdisi

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:05:00 +0000

I think it should work like this:

U go to a caldari station. Go to Bounty office. Say that u want to fight for caldari. U get war declared to any other guy that accepts other factions privateer status.

U can hunt them in space no matter whose space it is. As arrogant factions trust their privateers. Means when u get bored u can pew pew even in jita.Or u can patrol the empire for an easy kill, whose also looking for an easy kill. And dropping faction fighter status should be as easy as getting in. This will remove station camps and prolonged and uneven fights.And so u'll do PvP when u want it, how u want it.

But this is all PvP. Game should track your kills against other faction fighters , not counting shuttles and noobships ofcourse. And giving a frig 1point a BS 5 point(values are just for example). Which 5 points value should be %10 of a BS's insurance money. So 2 buddy shouldnt kill each other full day to farm the game. So apart from loot u can have benefits from fighting for faction. Turn points to LP if u want.

Ofc , when ever u jump in Faction warfare u should have a new chat window with active fighters in constellation. which coulnt gank each other as normal NPC corp members.but can gang up for better and faster kills.

Also some good event can be organised that an arena. Example: As there will be a factional war in system XXX at 1600 eve-time. At astroid belt X , there will be a gallantean carrier which carries 3 faction modules. Go kill it and loot the can. Only factional fighters can engage or the concord will interfare as Yulai convention etc etc.

PvE is not required as we have already cosmos missions and maybe a few more cosmos missions only acquirable by accepting Faction fighter status might be seeded.

The penalty for fighting the enemy faction must be isk wise. If u want Gallante to forgive u because of your sins, u should give money to Gallante faction. It should be like a bounty on your head increasing with every mission u do against Gallante NPC. But Gallante Player kills shouldnt be problem for gallante federation. As all capsuleers are just somewhat mercs in great war :) And docking shouldnt be problem as far as u dont go -5 status to faction. Same rules with missions.

Maybe I should edit this someother time.. too late here

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Vyktor Abyss

Tue, 2 Oct 2007 16:55:00 +0000

Agent Assassination please...

That Duvolle barsteward Sitlar Beene has got it coming for never giving me a T2 Ship BPO.

I'd quite like to see NPC (& PC) stations destroyable too. Lets get rid of some clutter eh?

- Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint!
Please read my ideas

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Raith Dag'gar

Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:07:00 +0000

would be nice it would take ppl away form thinking to their alliances and corp wars ... would be nice to see an army of one factions npc enter a system and start a war... meaning that players of an opposing race will have to react and work together this anyhow with a news warning or so

would give eve a new aspect ... also maybe even a chance for new races to emerge

would like to see multi racial alliances like "BOB" or "the Goons" reacting to this would really make ppl rethink the way of playing eve ... ( this should affect corperations) also i think this should bring about large alliances being stand alone from the factions .... meaning the factions can also target the bigger alliances ... also making them rethink the idea of trade and currancy

also beginning players would feel more able to do something if they cant find a corp or get fed up with misssions

ranking players as a reward to fighting in the war would also be a nice addition to the game also distribution of faction ships would be a reward

love the idea

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by GoGo Yubari

Mon, 1 Oct 2007 01:34:00 +0000

Wow, dynamic security status based on which territory you are at = absolute win. Note that this could be expanded out to player sovereignty, for a totally seamless fit!

Love by nature. Live by luck. Kill by profession.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Proton Power

Mon, 1 Oct 2007 00:52:00 +0000

Okay, I have never been interested into the RP / Factions until reading some of this, and then reading other parts of this makes me not want any part to do with it again.

Anyway, I think the only low sec idea is a horrible idea, if people still have to go out looking for pvp and then having to deal with pirates, and this and that it will get to the point where its not worth it and nobody will end up doing it, you would be better off in 0.0 space.

I feel it should be like a switch. You can turn it on and off, but limited, you can't be part of the war one day and the next day not. Should take like 10 days or so to turn off the switch. Corps and Alliances should have the ability to due this as well. The switch basicly allows anyone in the opposing faction that has there switch on to become a target.

This would cause mass PVP in empire, which I think would be great for the game, RP's, and such. Then those that want no part don't have to partake. I feel it should be a 4 way fight not a 2 way fight, each faction should fight each other in some way, and you could give missions like go out and kill specific ships, or a number of people. Maybe even make it so you have to go collect x amount of corpses of the enemy faction.

I also feel you can fly any ship you want, but for missions to be a success you need to be in your race faction ships. Example if I just want to go kill people I can fly what ever, but if I want it to count for one of my ship kills for my mission, I would need to be in an Amarr ship if I chose amarr as my faction.

I also feel your character should be the faction you represent, not your standings. It would suck for a lot of us old timers, but it would be wierd to have an amarr character fighting for the minmatar IMO.

HOpe this makes sense and hope it gets read now that this has went 9 pages. I know if it happend somthing like this I would probably open up an RP corp myself.

Maybe make it where what ever faction has the most completed missions in the past 24hrs gets some sort of bonus, like 5% more shields, or damage or somthing.
-----------------------------------------------

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=439797Cli

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Twilight Dragon

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:38:00 +0000

Okay, I like how this is going, my only concern if for the people who would prefer to not **** off the empires while doing this. Suggesting that you put in an option for people to run with serpentis, angels, sansha, guristas, and the other major pirate factions. Pretty sure you would have people that would do it, those nasty pirates ( especially if you have decent rewards ). And there will definitely be people willing to go out and shoot them.

Twilight Dragon

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Laechyd Eldgorn

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:53:00 +0000

My few favorite personal thoughts:

1. Concord removed, instead we could have national or regional polices.
2. Faction warfare should be "everywhere" no silly pvp "arenas" or whatsoever.
3. Factional warfare and standings should be definetly linked. No sudden leaps from side to side. It should be long term goal to work for one faction. Where PvP would play the main role, so no switching sides in a week by killing rats in 0.0.
4. If you fight for one faction or kill members of one faction, you would be denied access to certain services like docking at stations in sovereignity of the named faction. I think this is pretty important. NPC reactions should make sense. You don't help enemy of yours.
5. I think low security space could cover a larger part of empire if factional warfare takes a place.
6. Player corporations would be of course affected by their individual players and their standings.
7. Since different players don't share same idea about the concept or RP. it shouldn've be required.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Amika Ala'sa

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 06:34:00 +0000

Yay . . . we get to go to war now.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Connor Banks

Sat, 29 Sep 2007 10:54:00 +0000

As I have understood it, the whole point with faction wars is that you have to choose which side you want to fight for. If that is the case, then I assume that there will be some sort of loyalty hierarchy by which the faction you fight for perceives you. Furthermore, I also imagine this loyalty hierarchy would then dictate the rewards a pilot gets.

If there would be a loyalty hierarchy in faction wars, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that race and faction standings are the two most important parameters? Other parameters, or sub-parameters, could be faction ships. How exactly all the parameters would manifest themselves in the game is not my place to decide.

If race, faction standings, faction items, and other possible parameters are not included in faction wars, then I fail to see the purpose of the whole faction war idea. Wouldnt it then be much easier to simply change how the present kill rights system works, because that is what faction wars in the end will be all about!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:12:00 +0000

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 28/09/2007 14:15:33
Racial fleets should be all about supply. Amarr FW players should have easy access to Amarr ships and faction stuff - as rewards and reimbusements. No enforcment though.

Example:
Adam and Barney are Amarr FW players. Adam uses Apoc, Barney uses Mega.
Adam will get Amarr mods and equipment up to Navy level, as FW rewards. One day he may get a Navy apoc too. He can use all this stuff directly, becoming independent from market like a solidier - all equiped by his country.

Barney gets the same stuff in his "FW shop". He can use armor and cap mods, but he has no use for tachyons and Navy Apoc, so he sells them and buys 425mm-s II. Its some effort to trade them, but in financial worth totals, he gets the same.

Adam looses his navy apoc with navy fittings in FW. Rather then get any ISK insuurance repayment, he spends some FW points and requests reimbusement. Amarr Navy gives him a brand new shiny ship with all destroyed fittings.

Barney looses his mega with some Amarr fittings and 425mm rails. He can keep this as a fully private loss and cover all expenses. He can also request reimbusement from Amarr Navy. They are able to give him some of the fittings, but they will probably have no Megathrons in stock and will only be able to offer money. Money based on base price. Taking in account mineral prices, loosing ship itself gives Barney some income - but it costed him FW points, so is not magic moneymaker in fact. He also gets reimbusement for destroyed fittings, but sadly, base prices are below market prices of most better equiupment. He will also not get a navy mega reimbused, ever, because Amarr navy does not have those for sure, and will not cover its 500 million value. Thats because its open market value, way above production cost (for navy, not for players). So if Barney looses Navy Mega, he gets only about 100m reimbusement.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Solant

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:38:00 +0000

Originally by: Connor Banks
Edited by: Connor Banks on 27/09/2007 16:15:08
Here are some ideas how to utilize the existence of faction ships in future faction wars. Instead of focusing how to penalize the usage of wrong ships, how about giving a small bonus for piloting the right ship? The bonus could for example be connected to both your liked by and disliked by faction standings. Also, the racial skills could come to affect the bonus.

Example:

A Caldari piloting a Navy Raven has a 5.0 faction standing with the Caldari state. The pilot also has a -5.0 standing with the Gallente.

The above example could give following bonus:

Both the liked by and the disliked by faction standing could be connected to the Caldari pilots ability to call in reinforcements under distress. The liked by standing could determine the magnitude of the reinforcement. That is, the more the Caldari state likes the Caldari pilot the more and better ships will be sent to the pilot in distress.

The disliked by standing could determine the time delay for the reinforcements to appear. This would mean that the more the Caldari pilot is disliked by the Gallente the faster the reinforcements will be deployed and arrive to the scene of action.

Further more, in this example the Caldari pilot also has some knowledge about Gallente ships. Given that the Caldari pilot has valuable information regarding how to operate Gallente ships the pilot could be given a small bonus when engaging Gallente. The bonus could then manifest itself via a small boost to both ECM and ECCM items towards/against Gallente ships.

End of example.

Thanks for your time!

Absolutely silly for the same reasons I listed above.

Can we step AWAY from turning this into some kind of defacto "fly the right races ships or DIE" concept? There is absolutely no way CCP is ever going to incorporate this.

They have stated youre going to have the option to choose whatever side you want, partly because corporations are not going to be willing to fight their own members simply based on racial ship types. Why would they start punishing players who weren't flying the "right" ships?

Besides, do you have any idea how unbalanced the concept of an all-gallente fleet vs an all amarr fleet would be? or an all caldari fleet against all minmatar?

Please people, lets use our brains before we just start throwing around baseless ideas... im not trying to be callous here but seriously, trying to force people into a racial ship role is a BAD idea simply because the game is open ended when it comes to racial choices.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Solant

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:33:00 +0000

Originally by: Malachon Draco
2. Meaningful choices.
Also if you want faction warfare, everyone aligned with Minmatar should be flying a Minmatar ship. Everyone aligned with Amarr should be flying an Amarr ship. Then you get real faction warfare. And choices should be practically permanent. Also no switching sides, no choosing the easy route.

It would IMO be the death of factional warfare if you'd see a fleet of CVA squaring off against Ushra'Khan with a third of the CVA in Megathrons, 15% in Rokhs and 15% in Tempests, vs a UK fleet in 30% megathrons, 20% rokhs and 10% apocalypses. Make the choices tough, and make people stick to them.

Abolutely no way this will ever work. Think about your suggestion for like.. 5-10 seconds.

I am Minmatar. I fly caldari ships exclusively. My corpmates want to fight with me. Some of them fly gallente. Some of them fly amarr. A couple fly minmatar.

Are you telling me I can't fly with my corp unless I force them all to somehow miraculously train for X_races ships in the next 3 months?

Back to the drawing board on that one.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Futher Bezluden

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:53:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?

Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

Factional warfare... they are destroyed :)

If you're gonna have a war, make it a big one that everyone will want to be in.

Yes, there should be massive NPC fleets from the Empires consisting of dreads, carriers, and large scale support -IN EMPIRE- conquering these enemy stations and making them their own. NPC "enemy" fleets flee the stations. Haulers undock trying to evacuate personnel and assets only to be destroyed without mercy. Those with horrendous standing will be charged, may not be able to rent corp offices, might not be able to use the fitting or repair shops.

It's WAR! It's not supposed to be sunshine and happiness.
THUKKER -Be Paranoid

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Connor Banks

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:44:00 +0000

Here are some ideas how to utilize the existence of faction ships in future faction wars. Instead of focusing how to penalize the usage of wrong ships, how about giving a small bonus for piloting the right ship? The bonus could for example be connected to both your liked by and disliked by faction standings. Also, the racial skills could come to affect the bonus.

Example:

A Caldari piloting a Navy Raven has a 5.0 faction standing with the Caldari state. The pilot also has a -5.0 standing with the Gallente.

The above example could give following bonus:

Both the liked by and the disliked by faction standing could be connected to the Caldari pilots ability to call in reinforcements under distress. The liked by standing could determine the magnitude of the reinforcement. That is, the more the Caldari state likes the Caldari pilot the more and better ships will be sent to the pilot in distress.

The disliked by standing could determine the time delay for the reinforcements to appear. This would mean that the more the Caldari pilot is disliked by the Gallente the faster the reinforcements will be deployed and arrive to the scene of action.

Further more, in this example the Caldari pilot also has some knowledge about Gallente ships. Given that the Caldari pilot has valuable information regarding how to operate Gallente ships the pilot should be given a small bonus when engaging Gallente. The bonus could then manifest itself via a small boost to both ECM and ECCM items towards/against Gallente ships.

End of example.

Thanks for your time!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Connor Banks

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:42:00 +0000

Here are some ideas how to utilize the existence of faction ships in future faction wars. Instead of focusing how to penalize the usage of wrong ships, how about giving a small bonus for piloting the right ship? The bonus could for example be connected to both your liked by and disliked by faction standings. Also, the racial skills could also come to affect the bonus.

Example:

A Caldari piloting a Navy Raven has a 5.0 faction standing with the Caldari state. The pilot also has a -5.0 standing with the Gallente.

The above example could give following bonus:

Both the liked-by and the disliked-by faction standing could be connected to the Caldari pilots ability to call in reinforcements under distress. The liked-by standing could determine the magnitude of the reinforcement. That is, the more the Caldari state likes the Caldari pilot the more and better ships will be sent to the pilot in distress.

The disliked-by standing could determine the time delay for the reinforcements to appear. This would mean that the more the Caldari pilot is disliked by the Gallente the faster the reinforcements will be deployed and arrive to the scene of action.

Further more, in this example the Caldari pilot also has some knowledge about Gallente ships. Given that the Caldari pilot has valuable information regarding how to operate Gallente ships the pilot should be given a small bonus when engaging Gallente. The bonus could then manifest itself via a small boost to both ECM and ECCM items towards/against Gallente ships.

End of example.

Thanks for your time!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Eraggan Sadarr

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:39:00 +0000

Originally by: Durente Galaica
I'm for a more proactive faction warfare. Allow me to explain:

If faction warfare comes into existence, it would likely come as a result from the weakening of Concord.

1) Dissolve CONCORD from its police duties.
2) Continue buff to Navies. However, the navy of each faction takes on the roll CONCORD did before factional warfare.
-Navy ships will still be at randomly different gates through their empire.
-If a person enters an area with low faction standing and avoids the NPC navies, he'll still be able to traverse the enemy territory. However, as the new local police will consider him outlaw, he'll also be responsible for avoiding PC players. As what police would warp in to save an outlaw?
-Security status dynamically changes depending on what territory you enter, as a relation to your standings.

This would be a simple and elegant solution to Factional Warfare. All that is required is to game design the exact cut off points for standings, write a back story, and perhaps introduce it through interactive player means rather than simply next patch everything becomes different.

In fact, this was what I was expecting when I first joined game and I was afraid to go into Minmatar space for that same reason.

What an elegant proposal. I like it :D

Eve Market Scanner

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Axel Vindislaga

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:49:00 +0000

Seems like what is being searched for here is a happy amount of conflict. The players want everything and the DEVS want fun stuff with a minimum of game reconstruction. Just whack in a few war zone systems with some patrolling navies. These navies "pew pew" people with low standing. Allow players to move freely into these systems for some blasting. Have the navies creating and destroying the gates to remove campers. Simple. Right gentlemen lets go to war.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Flora Chase

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading
Everything Said

So very /signed its not even funny.

***** POS - 2.2 removed the drudgery! POS are now actually fun for many people! Use FW to expand their role in new and interesting ways, including using installations like NPCs get in their deadspaces.

* Sov Level. As a reward for helping a faction fight, let me use sov-requiring structures on starbases. For Exmpple. With sufficient standing and LP, allow on lining of cyno generator arrays if your declared for faction owns the system. OK, perhaps this should only apply in NPC 0.0

* NPC 0.0 There are several entire regions of 0.0 space owned by NPC. This space could trade hands without affecting the empire sandbox too much.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by LordVodka

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:05:00 +0000

I havnt yet read the full 9 pages so I don't know if this has been proposed or not, but has it been concidered that factions could take systems from each other, like the amarr could push there way deep into minmatar space and claim sovereignty over them, but leave say 10 or so home systems that are unconquarable to each race so they still have somewhere to base out of.

I think this would be a very cool edition, and that maybe agents of neutral standings with higher lp rewards then usual could be in some of these conquarable systems. Then when hte controlling factions take these systems the agents are there factions to use untill they are pushed outa the system by another faction.

I think this would do a great job of incorporating pvp and pve, we'd need the pvp'rs to go and ake systems and gain the rewards in so doing then the pve players could come and hold down systems while they got to use the nicer mission agents.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sylthi

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:48:00 +0000

Faction based PvE missions, that have NOTHING to do with PvP. They are already there, in a respect; but they could use a SERIOUS expansion to them. This would mean that the factional warfare expansion would have something in it for EVERYONE; not just the PvPers (AGAIN).

On a personal note, I gave up on PvP as a main line back in early 2005. (Been playing for over 4.3 years now.) After 1700+ career kills, over 5 different characters, I kinda figured "What's the point?" PvP got REAL boring for me, real fast, after that. I know there are tons of players out there who will never tire of PvP and will always desire for it to be a central part of Eve. More power to them, I say. But there are places for that; they are called low sec and no sec; and they happen to cover MOST of the Eve playing universe already. For me however, and I am sure the 1000's of other players who would rather have nothing to do with PvP at this point; how about throwing us a bone into a major expansion such as Factional Warfare? I am much more into the financial part of Eve now. After all, MONEY is where the REAL power lies; not at the end of a blaster. >:)

*

*

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kazuma Saruwatari

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:34:00 +0000

Originally by: Bruno Bonner
In support to Tharrn's comments, but also supporting current game mechanics and existing stations i would like to point the following:

Under the Youl covention, the creation of CONCORD and the Cease-Fire agreements between all the four core Empires i would have guessed the following were signed on treaties:

No empire or sovereign nation that abides to CONCORD rules can deny docking to any other pilot, not even criminals. However there is freedom of liberty on the services fees applied to said individuals.

Gate and Station Sentrys will only attack Criminals and Outlaws defined by CONCORD rules, individuals who are not welcomed in empires will not be taken care of by CONCORD fleets, however their Navies are free to deal with said tresspassers if they see fit.

So you see, increasing the cost of operating from an opposing faction's station should tripple so at least they comply to CONCORD agreements but make life a hell of a lot more difficult to said organizations. Today we also have the random navy spawn when someone with faction standings -5.0 or lower enter the enemy sovereign space. That also difficults moving freely.

The standings mechanics is already in place, just make use of it properly.

Bruno

Quoted for effect. Dont ignore this valuable tidbit of information for Factional Warfare
-

Odd Pod Out, a blog of EVE Online

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Callus Tacticus

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:57:00 +0000

3.Faction Missions- If you sign up for a Faction, you can gain access to a special set of faction missions. Perhaps it could be missions that send you into the contested areas or into enemy space to complete. I would think there should be some sort of division here between casual Faction Warfarers, and those who wish to Role-play more.

------------a.Maybe you could get them from Officers in space who move around. Similar to COSMOS agents. These would be agents who reside in ships that can be alone or part of fleets. Perhaps there could even be one that sits in a Titan and gives out missions into low sec for players with capital ships or larger gangs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.Faction Officer Modules- Provide Faction Officer modules to players for completing harder objectives in Factional Warfare. Example: Mithoula Tekkan of the Caldari Navy who has a Raven that flies somewhere in the system of Isinokka, patrolling, gives you if you have reached a certain threshold in standings, can give you a Mithoula Tekkans Cruise Missile Launcher. Similar to the COSMOS agents that reportedly will give you a Navy Issue ship if you have very high standings with their faction. This can be incorporated with or without having factional missions. I would like for these Officers to be non-static, and moving, but have a general patrol area that is only a system for lower level officers and a region for high level officers.
Alright that is enough typing for now

---------------------------------------------------------

But I also enjoy the ideas of some rewards that arent as USEFUL, but still would be fun to have as bragging rights, including medals, titles, or even ranks in the factions navy!

I will be back soon with #5 after I finish reading page 2 of this feedback thread.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Callus Tacticus

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:54:00 +0000

Edited by: Callus Tacticus on 25/09/2007 02:55:57
Edited by: Callus Tacticus on 25/09/2007 02:55:08
I want to acknowledge CCPs hesitation over doing anything with stations located in enemy space. Of course, I enjoy the idea of making them conquerable for your faction, but that is probably very hard to incorporate. There are many ideas to consider, but I hope that CCP does finally figure out something that makes sense for the game mechanics, as well as from a Role Playing point of view.

A few things:

1. CONCORD should be like a global peacekeeping force, it has been powerful during times of peace, but now with the wars breaking out, there should be lots of loyalists to certain factions in their ranks. CONCORD should lose most of its power, and be relegated to patrolling 1-2 neutral areas that players can use as trading hubs, etc. DO NOT MAKE JITA ONE OF THESE NEUTRAL AREAS! (Had to say it)

---------------------

2.With the loss of CONCORD as a major power, and with war being fought, all the races navies should be beefed up, and take the place of Concord. If a noob, or other neutral party not participating in factional warfare is attacked, they arrive like CONCORD to punish the aggressors.

------a.As has already been posted by a couple of people, if you engage in factional warfare, with say, the Amarr, and are attacked in Amarr space you get full protection by the local navy. But if you have low standings with Amarr, and are attacked, nobody comes to your rescue.

-------------------i.There should be some contested areas where the navies are too busy fighting each other, or not consolidated enough, to help out against two players involved in faction warfare instantly, but if there is a prolonged battle between two gangs, there is a chance some ships may show up to help. (Mainly this should be taken care of by a calling for help in local. But some NPCs would be a nice touch especially if the next paragraph can happen.)

-------------------------------------------- 1.And if ships from both opposing factions fighting for the system show up BIG BOOMS!!! There is some definite potential here, but I can see how it would be hard to write incorporate it/write code. But something along these lines would be very nice, and would provide some nice news articles about fleet battles that might feature some players names as involved in the fight. =D

------b.You should get Standings, as well as Loyalty Points or some other equivalent for the Factions, for destroying enemies of the state. Also, the Factions should have some sort of Geneva Convention equivalent so as to protect pod pilots from being podded in factional warfare. It should be like it is now with CONCORD, and the resident navy shows up and destroys your ship, and both fines you isk, and docks you standings for breaking the code of conduct between factions. Obviously this allows for casual players from not taking a huge risk with Faction Warfare. However, advanced players with factional warfare should have the ability to get their standings so low with the opposing faction, that they can be podded on sight. There should be a lower threshold for this in the contested areas

-------------------i.The rewards should be based on a few factors, including victims standings with your faction, as well as where he/shes ship was destroyed. Destroying an enemy ship in your own factions space should give you lower rewards than destroying an enemy ship in the contested areas (less risk).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jason Edwards

Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:43:00 +0000

I think it'd be a great way to start up a sort of new storyline missions people could accept. Have it set up so gangs of 2 or more could join one of these storyline missions. Essentially the gang leader would come along. Join the mission and the whole group gets the mission. The mission than could just task them to some system. Where they are highly likely to come into contact with the other mission or missions which may be taking place. Which by taking the mission it makes all the people who are also on mission or attached to the factional warfare to appear to be war targets while in hi-sec.

I don't think it necessarily needs to be in low sec. As far as I remember it wasn't low sec on the borders in between the empires. That's where I'd expect the faction warfare to take place. It would be far more interesting for it to take place primarily in hi-sec. Plus it is "Factional WARfare" which typically if there is war targets in hi-sec there's no problem attacking them.

No obviously you'd need to take someone's side and then there will be relationship affects with who you are going out to kill. While building up relationship with the navy you are fighting for. With obviously loyalty points or whatever for the missions you are doing. So sometime down the road you will be able to buy a navy/federate issue megathron from the gallente in say the event you had sided with gallente. *Which I suggest as then you would be fighting for democracy and fair life for all people.*

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ryan Darkwolf

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:20:00 +0000

8 pages and I have yet to see this either asked or stated:

Will the NPCs start to attack each other?

I mean since it is going to be factional warfare, I was hoping to see massive (or small scale) NPC battles that you can jump in on and help out your chosen faction in?

I can't remember which game it is...but I do remember something like this being in it... some space game that I can't remember...
-------------------

FREE COOKIES and (>.(>O.O)> HERE

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Vort X

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:59:00 +0000

The faction warfare would be a great interest for 0.0 residents if the reward system would allow the station owner entities to hire mission agents (for a monthly fee) to their stations, making their space more valuable.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cpt Branko

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:38:00 +0000

Originally by: Fergus Runkle

To be honest I cannot understand why this is even up for discussion. Eve is a harsh place, nowhere is safe. We have suiciders in high sec, scammers on contracts, corps that random war dec and choke points into 0.0.

Yes, but then you really should remove caldari & amarr stations from gallente & minmatar space and vice versa, since who'd allow a enemy to build a station within its borders?

At any rate, I'm against removing docking rights, since it will be a significant deterrent towards people joining FW and a big problem because, well, you'll get tons of people accidentally buying stuff from a Amarr/Caldari station in Gallente space and then not being able to pick it up.

Originally by: Fergus Runkle

Negative standings simply has to have meaningful consequences, refused docking is in my opinion the least of things that I would do to someone I see as my enemy.

Yeah, but then stations (especially stations in hostile space) should be attackable and conquerable.

At any rate, I think any messing with the market (like, progressive taxing or even forbidding to buy/sell based on standings) is stupid. Reason?

It'll just make people metagame more, which is not something we really need. Same way with having -5.0 sec status - you have to have alts for transporting & selling stuff, you'll have to have alts for this, too.

I don't think we need more of that 'use alts for x' crap, really.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by JonasML

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:42:00 +0000

The thing I most want to see is punative expeditions by some of the factions, ie, those who run Guristas missions in venal might suddenly have the Caldari Navy show up, or an alliance might have to defend against the Gallente Federation for having too high a standing with the Caldari State. The same applies to corps, those who have lots of mission runners might have a harder time moving through the opposing faction's space.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mudkest

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:48:00 +0000

Originally by: Dr Grot
I think this has been already stated in a dev response, from what I gather, players won't be restricted to only piloting the ships of the faction they're fighting for.

You could be a Caldari pilot, flying a Minmatar ship, fighting for Amarr empire in theory.

Any limit on ships race type would be just silly and quite frankly unworkable. You would be penalising those players who invested in training different race ships to take advantage of some of the better classes.

The only restriction might come from the LP store and which faction ships are for sale for each faction. Even so imo not a lot of people would be using their navy ships in pvp unless the prices came down as a result of the more LP players acquire.

you are missing my point entirely. I did NOT ask for restrictions on ships a player can pilot. I asked for different types of ships for different races, for example a heavy destroyer for amar(that ALL players can fly because there are no restrictions like this)

-----
GIEV custom ship paint jobs!

I want my hello-kitty-kessie!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Bagehi

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:52:00 +0000

I'm not sure if someone else has already pointed this out yet or not, but, I would think the autopilot system would need to be revamped. People would need to have the ability to tell the autopilot to stay away from certain constellations/regions, so you aren't left plotting your own course to get around (insert the faction that hates you) space.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Grot

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:17:00 +0000

I think this has been already stated in a dev response, from what I gather, players won't be restricted to only piloting the ships of the faction they're fighting for.

You could be a Caldari pilot, flying a Minmatar ship, fighting for Amarr empire in theory.

Any limit on ships race type would be just silly and quite frankly unworkable. You would be penalising those players who invested in training different race ships to take advantage of some of the better classes.

The only restriction might come from the LP store and which faction ships are for sale for each faction. Even so imo not a lot of people would be using their navy ships in pvp unless the prices came down as a result of the more LP players acquire.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mudkest

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:32:00 +0000

not sure if this has been pointed here or not yet, have seen this mentioned in another post. but the "every race get same ship types" seems a bit silly to me.

anyway, factional warfare and new ships. For example, amar method of bringing big ships with shiney hulls and light shows, and minmatar's hit-and-run approach with fast agile ships. after the war started and minmatar lost ships to amar battleships, amar not being able to deal with the hit-and-run tactics all that well theye design new ships as a counter, only logical right?

so, minmatar might come up with a heavy stealthbomber, able to do some serious damage against battleships(t2 cruiser design with bonus to citadel torpedoes like stealth bombers have now or something). And to deal with those pesky fast frigates and cruisers the amar design a heavy destroyer(whole new t1 ship type).

but only make those new ship types for 1 or 2 races(there's no restriction in this game, so everyone will be able to fly the amar heavy destroyer if theye want too). maybe only at first and create one for every race later.

looks more fun in the "fi tion heavy" part to me, amar come up with counter, minmatar creater counter to that, caldari adapts it and then galante gets a new ship to counter the caldari/minmatar one and so on. Also looks more fun game-wise to me, as now we getting 20 new ships for example in next patch, 5 different typse. If not every race would be getting same ship type then there might have been 10 or even 15 nw ship typse with those 20 new ships.
suppose there might be balance issues, but the "every race should have one" is not really a balance issue imo, as everyone can fly any ship.

-----
GIEV custom ship paint jobs!

I want my hello-kitty-kessie!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Venkul Mul

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:10:00 +0000

Originally by: Malachon Draco
It would IMO be the death of factional warfare if you'd see a fleet of CVA squaring off against Ushra'Khan with a third of the CVA in Megathrons, 15% in Rokhs and 15% in Tempests, vs a UK fleet in 30% megathrons, 20% rokhs and 10% apocalypses. Make the choices tough, and make people stick to them.

I disagree with your idea that the combatants should stick to the racial ships.

Let's make some example related with WWII:

- a large percentage of the english armoured forces was composed by american tanks (grant, lee (a modified grant renamed by the english), stuart and sherman tank, M3 halftrack);

- Patton fielded a whole division of german tanks and used it in the '44/45 winter campaign;

- the URSS had a noticeable number of english and USA tanks (but used them in secondary roles as most of the T34 models where better) and a lot of USA halftrack and trucks, widely used;

- the germans used a lot of 76 mn guns captured from the russian, building with them tank hunters on french tank chassis, then used polish and checoslovak tanks, and modified them in hybrid forms;

- the english used captured italian tanks in the deser wars;

- the italians used French tanks in the defence of Sicily in '43;

and the list can go on for a lot of time.

So the use of enemy materials is common in war. It would be really interesting if one of the possible rewards for faction warfare was some hybrid ships created blending 2 enemy states tecnology, for example:

"Seizing the system Villore the Amarr Empire has captured a large number of partially build meghatron and converted them to the use of our glourious lasers.
So we are willing to give them to the ally of our empire."

So the Amarr faction will sell for LP and isk a limited set of Meghatron with the ship bonus changed in a laser damage/laser capacitor bonus for Amarr BS level, and a tracking bonus for Gallente BS level, without other change in armor/shield/hull and the minimum change possible in fitting.

The best thing would be if the number of those ships would be limited (even if large enough, at least some hundred if the number of players doing faction wars is high enough) and giving them out linked to partecipating in the faction wars in a specific timeframe (i.e. the first quarter 2008 campaign veterans are the only people allowed to buy the Amarr Blessed Meghatrons).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Venkul Mul

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:29:00 +0000

Originally by: Tempest Kane
Edited by: Tempest Kane on 14/09/2007 17:10:59
Will factional low sec stations be conqurable by a corporation or alliance who decides to support/fight for an opposed faction of said station owning faction?

If so i see a strong use and incentive for 0.0 groups to take part and secure low-sec hub points for logistical reasons + cyno nets to empire useing the pos/portaling system.

I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.

Its time for the sandbox to expand inwards.

You are jocking or following the BOB idea of total control over EVE, I hope.

If your suggestion is intended as a serious one, you are asking for:

a) more toy and space for big alliance, this time in low sec instead of 0.0;

b) less space for small corporations;

c) less space for new players;

d) less space for half or more of the EVe population, the halt that alredy has accees to less than 1/4 of the systems.

For alle the above it is a very bad idea

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by miss horizontal

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:16:00 +0000

My Idea is to actually get agentmissions out of the game and placem in this Factional Warfare Stuff.(yes u will keep LP and Standings)

So now we have 2 groups of "mission runners"
The ones who choose to go and do the "Storylines" [insert factional warfare "missions" here] and the ones who want to do their Own missions but can choose to help the faction they do "missions" for in main encounters when say headquarter of faction is attacked.

If they were doing courier missions before they can now go and haul stuff to the frontlines [insert new idea of courier missions here]
people who did combat type of missions can defend a system and kill a small raid of enemy faction.

And yes send those to lowsec too.. its a game at the end and people should travel and have an impression atleast of every part of it.If they really dont want to go to Lowsec and help with FW they can "Defend" the homesystems of the faction.

Playing together like this u can now have people working together to achieve a goal example pl A has mission to bring ammo to the frontlines and hes in gang with his buddies(or who want to do combat missions or in this case new Esscort mission(wich u wanted to bring in anyways), so this gang gets now order/mission: Fleet needs Ammo and the gang has to deliver they choose whos Hauler and they choose whos Escort they equip what ships they want but they have to buy/build ships and stuff they need ofc.

Basicly combine the existing with the new FW get rid of what u didnt like from beginning.

Can be Great Chance for CCP in fixing missions and have really an Situation where people have to work together to finish a "mission".

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Grot

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:14:00 +0000

I'm looking forward to FW as a new player. The RP and storyline missions are a bit weak atm. Some really great ideas floating about here

CCP,
I really really hope you won't tie skill points into faction warfare. Skill points and prerequisite skills should not enter the FW/RP side of the game at all in my opinion.

Every player should have equal access to FW, giving veterans a step up the FW ladder would be a very bad thing.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:11:00 +0000

Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 21/09/2007 21:13:20
Details on the installation categories
Each system has 10 dead space slots for FW. There are four tier levels of installations, which can be constructed in PvE mission part. The availability is depending on the Sovereignty Level. At SL <1.0 only basic (Tier I) installations are available. At 1.0 1.99 Tier II installations are available in the PvE part and 2.0 3.0 Tier III installations are available. Tier IV is only possible in systems with SL > 3.0, if the majority of systems in a constellation is dominated with SL 1 (Tier II installations in system).

Tier I installation
Building costs: no burden for a small man group of average players ( 2 man hour work eqivivalent in minerals/trage goods)
Strontium bay: 1 - 36 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 1 3 days
Sovereignty value: 2 if successfully defended, -1 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: FW-PVE Mission agents
PVP-Scenario: 5 vs 5, maximal cruiser size, only T1

Tier II installation
Building costs: no burden for a average corp of average players ( 10 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 1 5 days
Sovereignty value: 3 if successfully defended, -2 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards
PVP-Scenario: 10 vs 10, maximal cruiser size, T2 ships allowed

Tier III installation
Building costs: quite a burden for a corp of average players ( 50 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.)
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 3 10 days
Sovereignty value: 6 if successfully defended, -6 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards, research slots for faction invention,
faction controlled jump bridges to other tier 3 installations usable also for capitals,
faction NPCs secure gates and stations, if SL is >3.0
PVP-Scenario: 15 vs 15, maximal battleship size, T2 ships allowed

Tier IV Installation
Building costs: large burden for the FW player community ( 500 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.) only possible if the majority of systems in a constellation is dominated
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 14 days
Sovereignty value: 10 if successfully defended, -20 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards, research slots for faction invention, mineral ore compressing refineries
faction controlled jump bridges to other tier 3 installations usable also for capitals,
Concord like interventions of the faction NPCs fleets patrolling the whole system, if SL = 4.0
PVP-Scenario: 30 vs 30, no ship type restrictions

The overall SL is the sum of the sovereignty values divided by 10. Negative values and >4.0 are capped into the range 0.0 to 4.0. In theory, a system could have a "true SL" of 10 or -20 but that would be shown as 4.0 and 0.0.

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:10:00 +0000

Reward Phase
Depending on the type of the installation and the amount of fuel (new types of fuellants, such as maybe NPC soldiers, NPC officers, ships, modules, ammunition) all installations, that have gone through the PvP phase, enter the reward phase and contribute to the reward system, the macroscopic Sovereignty Level and an individual reward system. An installation, that was not successfully defended, rewards the successful aggressors directly after the PVP phase by dishing out rewards via the agent in space aka faction officer and then closes down. An successfully defended installation dead space becomes accessible through out the whole reward period for the Mission Owner and the Defenders via a non-transferable Badge, which servers as a gatekeeper, that activates the gate to the installation for a defined period. So if you have own the Badge, you can use it to warp and gate your friends to the installation. Depending on the installation the Badge Owners and their FW friends, can use the installation for retrieving rewards such as transformation of goods into faction rewards or access to rewarding PVE Missions etc.
Once the reward phase has ended, the installation get degraded by one Tier level (see below, a Tier I just despawns) and gets populated by the opposing faction, thus getting on the mission roaster for the PvE conquer mission part.

The macroscopic Sovereignty Level has influence to the behaviour of the station services and the hosted agents and the system security. With low SL the system behaves pretty much the sames as now with no bias towards anybody.
High SL provides certain quantitative advantages such as better refining, lower repairing costs, cheaper production, higher Mission rewards, while players of the opposing faction suffer from quantitative and qualitative disadvantages such as inaccessible services and/or higher costs and lower rewards. Non-participating players are only mildly quantitatively affected depending on their faction standing, they will have all services but the costs may be slightly influenced by their standing in high SL Systems.
In addition high SL provides security for the participating FW players in a way, that NPC faction fleets secure the gates and stations. Their number, strength and mode of action depends on the SL. For very high SL 4.0, the system behaves for correct aligned FW players like a high sec system, meaning they can run missions and mine in a system without the fear of getting attacked by anybody since NPC faction fleet behaves like CONCORD for them.

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:09:00 +0000

The securing NPC fleet must be actively called by the deployment of an item Faction Officer which then transforms into an agent in space for interaction purposes, rewarding the winning pilots personally:

PVP part for Bating Missions of the counter-faction
The Bating Missions are pretty much the same in terms of the player gathering mechanisms, but with the difference, that they are regionally listed at Intelligences Agents located a region headquarter. The FW players get information about the the level of the mission, duration of the reward phase, the maximal fleet specifics (number and ships) and of course the date and timing of the end of the RF phase. In addition, they get information on how many Mission Badges have been issued for this mission giving a feeling how crowded a mission could be. In order to avoid exploits, there should be a fee or escrow for obtaining these Badges so you are highly encouraged to then pursue the mission, once chosen.
Once a pilot has selected a mission he gets the non-transferable Mission Badge, which discloses system, where he is supposed to head for this operation and all other mission specifics. In order to minimize chances for third party interactions the Badge does not lead directly to the system, where the installation is located, but to a non-scanable agent in space in one of the neighbour systems. This agent in space is heavily guarded by faction NPCs ensuring, that only players of the correct faction gather at the agent in space. Once the RF mode phase has ended, this agent in space can open a jump bridge for the specified number of pilots and ship types in to the dead space pocket, where a gate accelerates the aggressing fleet into the area of the installation itself. In other words many pilots can gather at the hidden agent in space, but when the installation becomes hot, only a defined fleet jumps over into the destination system and then decides, when to engage the defending fleet by using the dead space internal acceleration gate that leads to the installation.

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:08:00 +0000

PVE part of Enforcing Missions
The PVE part of this mission might comprise the conquering and reinforcement of a hostile installation from opposing NPCs (military plus minor logistics) or the building of a new military installation (major logistics mission) and follows the standard design of NPCs missions. The result in any of these scenarios is a dead space dedicated to the FW PvP players only. The dead space is 2-staged secured by an acceleration gate allowing access to the main area only to correctly aligned FW players, only in a defined number and with defined ships. Certain missions require small fleets, some allow larger fleets, some missions require specific ship types or disallow certain ship types. To make the use of these dead spaces as flexible as possible the mission owner can, configure the installation to some extent. Strontium shall serve the very same purpose as in POS warfare, while other fuels shall govern the reward period, where the successful PvP defense is rewarded with a score contribution towards the Sovereignty Level of the system and personal bonuses towards the defending players. With the successful conquer or erecting of an installation the Mission Owner gets a copyable and tradable Badge serving as bookmark, access key and providing the scenario information on the PvP part. With the use of this Badge, he can either organize the PvP defence phase privately by sharing the Badge with his friends or in public by using contracts or other means.

PVP part of Enforcing Missions
Similar to the use of Strontium in POS warfare the installation is secured by a player chosen grace period giving the player the chance to organize the defence the installation in a PvP situation, then followed by the period of active defence and closed by a reward period. As mentioned above, the installation is configured in the PvE part by the Mission Owner but every correctly aligned FW player can take part in the defence of the installation by acquiring the Badge from the Mission Owner.
As said above Badge provides a bookmark to the entry gate of the dead space and gives information on the specifics of the scenario ( i.e. when the Installation gets out RF Mode, how important the Mission is i.e. how important the installation is and long the reward phase will take and what the pilot number and ship type restriction of this scenario are. Everybody else, who tries to jump to the bookmark location without having the Badge and being part of the correct faction will be dragged to a blank space within the dead space pocket, where the only option is to warp out again, thus no third party can interfere. The acceleration gate to main stage is the scenario filter allowing only specific ship types and only the specified number of pilots to get access prior to the end of the RF mode. Once the installation gets out of RF mode, there is a 30 min defence period, where both sides can fight over there installation and 10 minute period, in which one FW fleet can call for NPC reinforcement but only if no player from the opposing faction is the installation anymore (PODs are forced to warp out by low DPS DOT generated in the installation). When the NPC reinforcement fleet arrives at the installation it secures it for the reward period.

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:07:00 +0000

Ideas on FW / NPC Sovereignty and PvP Missions

Premises: The current system of static faction empires shall remain, while there shall be an dynamic impact caused by the players participating in the factional warfare. Therefore, systems will not completely change faction alignment, but a dynamic influence factor affects the behaviour of towards faction aligned player, providing a macroscopic reason to take part in the FW. The players shall be the driving forces of these dynamics. Therefore, a system should relax into its initial state, which shall be represented the current situation without FW, if player do not performs FW activities in the system.

The aim of PVP missions is synchronize balanced forces of opposing factions and get them into a defined scenario with minimal interferences of third parties. As a given premise a corporation needs to get a suitable faction standing to enrol for participation in FW. Its members then can decide how much they personally want to take part in the FW.

Sovereignty Level (SL) : While it was recently introduced as a new parameter stirring PvP POS warefare in player alliance driven 0.0, the concept shall be extended to NPC controlled low-sec space determining the degree of domination of this faction the particular system. Since a high domination gives certain benefits to the corporations aligned with the faction, this system provides a top level reasoning to take part in factional warfare while the individual player also gets direct benefits from taking part in the FW mission system. The SL system is only applicable to low-sec systems since CONCORD enforces an unbiased treatment of all factions in high-sec systems.

Faction Warfare Missions based on Faction Warfare Installations
First, the player decides whether to take part in sovereignty enforcement of a specific system or to take part in the campaign of the counter-faction in order to weaken the domination of the opposing faction. Enforcing missions are available only for the system you are in, sovereignty bating missions are regionally listed and system unspecific prior selection. The system name becomes only disclosed once the mission has been selected, thus avoiding possible exploits.

While enforcing missions comprise a PvE, a PvP and a reward phase, the bating missions are PvP only. The concept of PvP force syncronization is similar to POS warfare using reinforcement mode as a tool, but without the current flaws of fleet combat, without the possibility to blobb and outnumber the enemy.

The general idea is to create PvP scenarios, where only the FW PvPers are able to take part in while other low sec activities are unchanged or only slightly influenced by the macroscopic effect of FW, i.e. the Sovereignty Level.

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by LovelyRita Metermaid

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:53:00 +0000

One thing I think would be very cool is if when the factions go to war suddenly there are no high-sec border systems anymore. In other words, you have to travel through at least one system of low sec space to go from Gallente sectors to Caldari, for example. After all, should Jita be filled with Gallente pilots when the factions are at war?

Rita

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:11:00 +0000

U should add the possibilty to let players help the faction then , building this npc s drones.
Which means if the wanna have strong npcs drones which patroulling / scouting the systems/ belts /sstations etc... , the player had to bring tech II ship comps + minerals perhaps tech I ships as Basics.
This woud also add a pvp situation to the factional warfare if "the other faction side" try to break such a deliverys.
So u need to protect this transports as a faction warfare player then.
Also there should be Missions which needs Freighters to transport stuff via secured " faction" cans( there is stuff for npc faction ships then inside). That the player had the chance to increase the npc faction ships, without donating it from market or producing.

A smal chance for tech II salvage on this npc faction ship wrecks sshoud be added.

About faction ships and patroulling and scouting.

They shoud temporary visit all belts / stations / gates.

if a player ( pa example) mining in a belt and the shown up , the npcs faction drones will take money from them, and he have the chance to accept it and can mining again. Or he didnt pay and have the chance to warp out ... for a spare time... or getting killed.

this woud add the situation that ppls in good quality system/ belts or publich belts will be do something against them.
A chance for t II salavage on tech II npc faction ships, will make it worth killing them too.

As a factional warfare player u shoud have the chance joing such a npc gang.
Upon your rank u coud take a position inside this gang.
Means if u rank is higher then the npcs faction gang u can give them bonus, which makes them stronger.
Upon your rank u shoud have step by step bigger gangs include better qualtiy npcs " wingmens".
U shoud have the chance to equip your wings with guns/ plates/ ammu/ repairer for the beginning.
The members of npcs" wingmens" shud be also combine with leadership skills.

pa example :
leadership skill
(extrabonus to the actualy skill)
lev 1 = 1 wingmen
lev 2 = 2 wingmens
lev 3 = 3 wingemns
lev 4 = 4 wingmens
lev 5 = 5 wingemns

wingcommand skill shoud take effect to wingmens quality like adding tech II ships to wingmen.

Fleetcomannd skill should add the possibilty for the player creating npc scouting gangs ( equiped by the player), which doing patrouls around the system.
This could be also scouting/ patroulling gangs which operate if the player isnt online.

This option should be only avaiable for realy high ranking factional warfare players.

some ideas.

breg mac

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fergus Runkle

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:58:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Tharrn
If you want to make it the awesome version then please, please, please make it so that someone who has ****ed off a faction enough can no longer dock at their stations. Nothing turns me off as much as supposed enemies of Amarr being based out of the Emperor Family Station in Amarr...

This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.

To be honest I cannot understand why this is even up for discussion. Eve is a harsh place, nowhere is safe. We have suiciders in high sec, scammers on contracts, corps that random war dec and choke points into 0.0.

All those things people consent to be part of one way or another (yes running your expensive stuff around in an indy in high sec is consenting to have it blown up). If people have bad standings to one faction then they must have done something to get those standings, therefore they must accept the consequences.

Negative standings simply has to have meaningful consequences, refused docking is in my opinion the least of things that I would do to someone I see as my enemy.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kira Felicitas

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:51:00 +0000

Regarding the npc ships I would have a small wish: don't let them all fly around in faction ships but also in common ships that also players can fly. It makes the whole thing more authentic I think. It's always a very boring thing to kill the same rats over and over again - and so it would be with those faction npc's. I would also appreciate if you made those factio npc's (or even the current npc's) a little harder: just smaller numbers of npc's but then with better fittings and maybe a greater variety in their fittings - and perhaps some useful loot ;)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Goumindong

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:07:00 +0000

Edited by: Goumindong on 20/09/2007 21:09:40

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Guomindong

# The aggregate of loyalty points in any low-sec system gained each day is summed and system sovereignty goes to the NPC force that has aquired the most loyalty points.
# System sovereignty spawns 0.0 quality gate rats of the type that holds sovereignty, and 0.0 belt rats of the type that are enemies of the faction that holds sovereignty.
# System sovereignty turns on/off agents of the apropriate type in the area.
.

While not the LP model you envisage here we had something similar in mind with objectives and such, which is a bit more direct.

But the rats defending conquered systems is certainly a rather cool idea, while their have been suggestions of NPC wingmen and that might be cool, having factional navies wondering about attempting to help secure the space your fighting around in might work quite well. I would like to expand upon this idea with patrols and sentries perhaps?

Basically i envisioned using NPCs as variable goals.

Lets say that Amarr holds low-sec domain. Well, low-sec domain is going to be a target for the Minmitar. So the Minmitar would send its forces to the area to cause disruptions etc. This would be represented as belt rats. The belt rats are hostile to all non-minmitar alligned players in the area. This may or may not mean that the normal pirate rats dont spawn, only that the minmitar rats spawn. This gives Amarran players an incentive to be in the belts killing rats. Because it nets them LP[or some other mechanic] which helps "the cause".

But you cant just expect Amarr to sit there and take it, they are going to attempt to control their systems. So they post guards at the gates. I.E. Gate Rats. The gate rats are hostile to any player alligned against Amarr[rather than non-amarr alligned]. Now this gives minmitar players reason to wander through Amarr space killing the gate rats and hey, as an added benefit they can jump into the belts and hopefully find some folks ratting Minmitar rats.

If the Minmitar generated enough LP in the area[or whatever mechanic you are using] to take the system then Amarr would start sending belt rats to the area and minmitar would post gate rats.

This way we give objectives to each side that push themselves towards one another. Considerations such as the quality of the rat[0.0 quality rats please], and the frequency with which they spawn compared to pirate rats, and the frequency with which they scramble are secondary to the idea of having dynamic objectives that consistantly push players togother.

Other things you can do is have gate rats be stronger the farther into territory you go[this is very difficult though because of jump algorythms] and the belt rats be weaker, but again, secondary to the dynamic objecties themselves.

Specificially how it is implemented, whether its faction alligned sentries or friendly patrols in belts or whatnot, isnt so important so long as the objectives are dynamic. You could give reasons for hostile forces to be in the area ratting instead of friendly forces for instance.

So feel free to expand upon the idea with partols and sentries.

As an aside: I dont think NPC wingman will be all that great. In the roleplay manner, to me, pod pilots seem like mercenaries and not like regulars, which means they likly wont have the ability to order NPCs around. That isnt to say that NPCs that are friendly with them shouldnt attack targets that are mutually hostile, it just means that the NPCs ought to be doing their own thing.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Cedric

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:22:00 +0000

Im having a hard time figuring out how to separate the "mission grind" and zero zero alliance fighting from FW. How are 'missions' going to be created in a way that both sides have the opportunity to meet each other so the face shooting can ensue?

It seems like if you sign up for X faction to bust up Y faction, (at least this is how I've interpreted this) that you'll have to wait, or ask for some 'mission' to go and bust up the bad guys. On the other hand, it also seems like you'll just grab the 4-5 Faction X-ers in system with you, go out to whatever system and 'gank' some Faction Y-ers. Both of these are already in place (missions and Alliance wars [read NBSI]). So how will this be different. I'd really like to hear how the devs are going to push FW to be PvP for a reason, because right now I can't figure it out myself.

On a different note, some more ideas.
Rankings listed in Bio is a great idea. A bit of importance attached to your character is good. Also corpses were mentioned. Let say you go and shoot General Gallente in the face, bust his pod and scoop his corpse. Can we bring said corpse into our home station and get a "Faction Navy Uber Mod of total destruction" or something along those lines. It would be intersting to see high ranking faction fighters having to watch their backs as they ascended the command ladder because of increasingly lucrative rewards for the otherside to face-blasterize them!

Another thing...I don't know if this is on track at all or not, but how about 'set bonuses'? Lets say you get a full Gal Navy setup, Mag stabs, blasters, ammo, reppers...the whole lot, AND you put it on a Federation Mega. Is there a mechanic to put a bonus on a mod or set of mods when they are active on the same ship? Say a full rack of this or that will give a 2-5% bonus for something. That would really encourage ppl to get into this FW thing, and to go all out to get that edge on the opposition.

One more idea:
I mentioned in an earlier post about industry and FW. Having a Faction market to sell faction goods to fellow faction fighters, and only being able to find faction bpc's in said market. It seems that this secondary market is the best way (i can think of anyway) to get industry really involved in this FW idea. You have to be aligned to the faction to get the bp, you have to use the faction facility to produce it, and you have to sell it from the faction station, since you can only purchase it from a faction station.

I'm liking this idea more and more. I hope things get smoothed out and we have a fully functioning system, ready to go straight out of the box when Rev. 3 comes out.
Keep up the good work
Dr Cedric

Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way

-My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance-

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:55:00 +0000

Originally by: Guomindong

# The aggregate of loyalty points in any low-sec system gained each day is summed and system sovereignty goes to the NPC force that has aquired the most loyalty points.
# System sovereignty spawns 0.0 quality gate rats of the type that holds sovereignty, and 0.0 belt rats of the type that are enemies of the faction that holds sovereignty.
# System sovereignty turns on/off agents of the apropriate type in the area.

.

While not the LP model you envisage here we had something similar in mind with objectives and such, which is a bit more direct.

But the rats defending conquered systems is certainly a rather cool idea, while their have been suggestions of NPC wingmen and that might be cool, having factional navies wondering about attempting to help secure the space your fighting around in might work quite well. I would like to expand upon this idea with patrols and sentries perhaps?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:49:00 +0000

Originally by: The Cosmopolite

Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.

On the controversial subject of docking rights. I'm not surprised this has reared its head but I'm not going to outright oppose it.

What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.

The thing you have to understand is that if you want to go up against the Empires without the support of another Empire behind you then this is a very big thing. The Empires are truly epic behemoths of power. Declaring war on one means you are taking on more than you can probably handle, your are taking on the man and the man has very big guns indeed.

So therefore, while we are looking into allowing players to declare on a faction without saying they will fight for so and so, will come with alot of deficits and not many benefits.

While I understand why you would want to do this given your RP background, and I would like to allow you to do this. Other entities may well want to do the same but without the same RP focus they may well decide to declare for a faction just to get to shoot the others in the face.

However, in the future we may change this, perhaps the Empire strength will decline or they will be too busy with each other to allow capsuleers to come and attempt to wrest a bit of control off them but for the first release, it will be a hard slog fighting an Empire without the support of another.

But we are looking into it and were going to see what we can play around with and come up with.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Night Tripper

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:36:00 +0000

Originally by: HexterBexter
Personally I would like to see areas akin to the battlegrounds in (dare I say it..) WoW. Contested areas (probably easiest to make them deadspace areas) that need to be held by small groups (say up to 10 ships) for period of time.

For instance you and 9 other players need to keep a battlestation from being destroyed for a period of 30 minutes. This would require all sorts of ships and strategies. Winners could gain factional standings and the losers of course lose standings.

Having players able to warp in and out at lower levels of difficulty but only warp in with higher levels as attrition takes its dastardly toll.

Also I would like to see a leaderboard where you can see how you rank. Either that or get a factional rank (private, general etc) so people can see how loyal you are. You could have it showing in your bio.

Finally, instead of getting rewards in a LP store fashion why not be given coordinates to a place they could find a reward. Make the player work for the reward. i.e

"I heard of a location for a stash the Gallente Navy were saving in case of war. Unfortunately it got overrun by ...blah blah... It was in the XXX system somewhere"

Sort of like the notes that drop occasionally. This would require probing to find, hacking / archeology to get and probably big haulers to remove the goods. Having the opposite faction getting the same location would make things interesting too... Make them hard with decent rewards

/my 2 cents - flame away :-)

i don't know if they make flame suites strong enough for that one

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by HexterBexter

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:23:00 +0000

Personally I would like to see areas akin to the battlegrounds in (dare I say it..) WoW. Contested areas (probably easiest to make them deadspace areas) that need to be held by small groups (say up to 10 ships) for period of time.

For instance you and 9 other players need to keep a battlestation from being destroyed for a period of 30 minutes. This would require all sorts of ships and strategies. Winners could gain factional standings and the losers of course lose standings.

Having players able to warp in and out at lower levels of difficulty but only warp in with higher levels as attrition takes its dastardly toll.

Also I would like to see a leaderboard where you can see how you rank. Either that or get a factional rank (private, general etc) so people can see how loyal you are. You could have it showing in your bio.

Finally, instead of getting rewards in a LP store fashion why not be given coordinates to a place they could find a reward. Make the player work for the reward. i.e

"I heard of a location for a stash the Gallente Navy were saving in case of war. Unfortunately it got overrun by ...blah blah... It was in the XXX system somewhere"

Sort of like the notes that drop occasionally. This would require probing to find, hacking / archeology to get and probably big haulers to remove the goods. Having the opposite faction getting the same location would make things interesting too... Make them hard with decent rewards

/my 2 cents - flame away :-)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:16:00 +0000

Punish for getting help? WTF?

-Lord Admiral, having noticed that our enemies are Ursha Khan veterans with much greater war experience then us, we asked some of our friends to aid us in battle. They risked their private ships and we covered the expenses from our own wallets, for the empire. Thanks to this sacrifice, we have won!
-Thats team killing, you're degraded to privates!

????
Should be;
-Lord Admiral (...)
-Impressive, most impressive. Deep in our hearts they have my gratitude. However, you do realise that the Empire can only give any rewards and reimbuse any looses only for the designeated team?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:24:00 +0000

Originally by: Azellin
How will you prevent team killing? I mean there will always be those bottomfeaders that want nothing better than to get in a faction group and then attack the other members.

Obvious answer would be to give a massive standings hit for team killing, so you can only do it a handful of times before your standings are low enough for the faction to boot you out of their FW force. Won't stop people doing it, but will stop them doing it too many times...
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Azellin

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:05:00 +0000

How will you prevent team killing? I mean there will always be those bottomfeaders that want nothing better than to get in a faction group and then attack the other members.
What about spies? There are bound to be spy alts getting into FW channels to alert their buddies where they opposing force is. What mechanism is going to Prevent this. Maybe I don't want to know so people can't plan to far ahead to get around the system. But I do want to know that you have thought this out well.

Escort missions! Get some FW 'missions' in there to protect those convoys. Have them jump between systems and have the opposing force get a mission to find and pew pew it. When you are escorting the convy would broadcast what it is doing so you could follow along. Like in chat it pops up "Convoy 239-Apha aligning to XYZ gate. Standby to warp." Etc.

FW gate camps. Are we going to see camps that are faction specific? I mean can a bunch of FWers set up a camp to keep out the oposing faction? Can we get faction specific interdiction spheres for use in low sec? please please please

I like the hidden faction base idea someone posted. Special places only your side can visit. Making them capturable or at least DISABLable, would rule.

SOS transponder. Some kind of 'come help me!' That brodcasts to all friendly faction folks with a jump or two that lets them know there is some faction stuff going down and they should come running. In combat it is hard to spam local for help and if something big is going down it would be sweet to know even from a jump or two away.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:45:00 +0000

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 19/09/2007 15:49:05
They (foreign stations) are not embasies of nation, they are stations of corporation. They are like Pizza Hut in Korea, England, Portugal, New Zeland or Pakistan. Those pizza hut restaurants are not embasies nor enclaves of United Stades. They are just restaurants, frenchised by a local firm, from American Restaurants company :) America Restaurants, even though they have "American" in name, are not representatives of US goverment nor army.

In case of war between Portugal and US, economic relations would probably be broken and restaurants would be sold/refranchised to a company with different logo and no connections to enemy nation (US in this example). In eve too - many stations would just be taken over by trade or force, resulting in Minmatar design stations owned by Amarr corporations, located in Amarr space.

However, in Eve, like in Cyberpunk literature, some corporations are insanely powerful.

Political influence and economic power of Poteque Pharmaceuticals in Caldari State and/or Amarr Empire, may be so big, to prevent breaking relations - instead, some agreements would be made to restrict those Poteque stations, as empires will at least try to prevent the risk of Poteque stations being used to hide and supply Gallente expeditionary forces (like pod pilots raiding Caldari space). However, some corporations, in some stations, sometimes - may break those agreements.
A lot of space for storyline intrigue and tweaks in mechanics in fact.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cailais

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:59:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?

Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

Foreign Stations in Faction space sound like Embassies / Enclaves to me. I'd suggest giving those staions (sry Ive no idea how common they are) a form of 'embassy' status and allowing any pilot to dock there. In essence they'll be 'safe points' for an opposing faction player to hide in while he's deep in enemy territory - but perhaps not an unreasonable idea.

Rather nicely it could be that these 'Embassy/Enclaves' are something to fight over and perhaps these can change faction hands - even in empire.

C.

- sig designer - eve mail

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Corrollo

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:50:00 +0000

IDEA:

Story:
The Caldari Fleet must supply [some type of goods] to XYZ Solar System in order to win a ground battle currently ensuing there.

Goals:
Caldari Faction Fighters will need to mount an escort of Industrials and combat ships in order to deliver the goods. There is a COSMOS like free agent at the planet to deliver the goods.

Gallente Faction must mount a blockade to prevent the Industrials from delivering the goods.

Mission Implementation:
The mission is offered and lasts a week. There is a quota that the Caldari pilots must make during this week long period.

In order to ensure there is PvP/Action, the deliveries can only be accepted during a specific 2 to 3 hour period every day for the 7 days. This way both sides can know when they will need to be online to fight!!!

I'm sure there are flaws, but I thought it would be cool.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Zofaman

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:43:00 +0000

Edited by: Zofaman on 19/09/2007 14:43:43
Im shamelessly presenting a somewhat vague idea:

Political life:
-Creating a npc and player political life. Npc politicians have specific lives and policies ever changing with time (at downtime), scriptet, random (important) and is somewhat player interactive.
-Politics are news items for each day, maybe its own window in game. Local news, regional news, world news, hidden news.
-Players (selected corp officials) also have political roles granting them access to intel, access to special (random) deals with (any)relation to NPC politicians/corp/faction.
-Faction politicians have virtual lives and change every day by complex random script but is somewhat coherent/meaningful and plausible over time.
-Any change of NPC/player policy could have a limited or prolonged effect onto any players/corporations/factions.
-Bribery (dicerolling) could be a new isk sink.

This political life could open up a new way for players to both engage in story and also engage in day to day fight for their corp.
This political life should not be a grind, not in any way.
Political life should enable the player to interact and make meaningful choices.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ogul

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:02:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Another quicky, i think your all assuming that we are going to require some kind of super high standing that to join factional warfare. This simply will not be the case so dont panic people :)

The number we had entertained to join FW was 1.0 standing towards faction. Of course this is subject to change and review but its a number we are happy with atm.

And what would be the point of such a (non-)requirement?

---
This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sargeant HAmmer

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:39:00 +0000

i think if we're gonna be having factional warfare we may be in need of a nice hellbent way of being able to gain standings from other factions without that blinking diplomacy skill. i have been informed that -5 or lower in other areas of space is pew pew time against ya but the dev blog says theyre pansies so i might just venture into there.

What i would like to see is the possibility to be able to change your allegiance without the need for the diplomacy skill. for example, you sign up to gallente and your current faction gets a huge whack off its sec status eg - 5 to caldari and + 5 to gallente or whatever it takes to bring you in with a chance to gain standings for another faction.after all diplomacy doesnt help if you have it at 5 and the faction is below -5.

anyone else agree with me here on being able to change allegiance but instead of just making it for an hour or a day or something a minimum term of maybe a week before you can change again.

i'm all for factional warfare if you can fix the current faction standing system so that you can actually try to gain standings with another faction. Or at least give us a way to increase it without 1. getting ship killed by concord 2. maxing out diplomacy and failing 3. without bringing in same factions in missions eg caldari agent, caldari mission, against caldari. (that should be a no no, unless....) hmm that gave me an idea. what about corupt agents that give you opposing faction standings :) :) :)

anyways, enough rambling, i hope someone reads this.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:29:00 +0000

thread needs more details leaked on the forums
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Saya Crimsonfang

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:16:00 +0000

Edited by: Saya Crimsonfang on 19/09/2007 07:16:11

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by David Zeta

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:16:00 +0000

Edited by: David Zeta on 19/09/2007 07:16:57
Some of the early posts mentioned the restriction of docking rights, and though the response has been that this will not really occur due to the presence of off-faction stations in every part of space, this would certainly reduce the viability of market superhubs like Jita. The more factional warfare makes it dangerous to travel to enemy faction space, the more market fragmentation you will see.

However, considering the imbalance in the number of players from various races/bloodlines, this could have some detrimental effects. The races with the fewest players may find themselves not only overwhelmed numerically in battle, but worse, with undersized markets.

Just be sure that the faction that is likely to have the fewest players fighting for it doesn't get totally mowed over.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fingapup

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:30:00 +0000

When the factions go to war, how is that going to affect the market?

I am actually a producer and trader but the way this would work would make stations and the market a real Tool of War.

Each station is constructed and owned by one faction or another. Docking rights are equally open to all according only to Concord security status... not according to faction standings. How will this change if I am at war with the Amarr Empire and decide to dock in an Amarr station?

There follows another question. If I can dock, then I can buy and sell, but for a faction that I am at war with to sell me the weapons to kill their pilots... it may sound politically real, but would that happen everywhere? (I posted about this some while back, but no-one was very interested.) Surely it follows that warring factions would impose ludicrously high tariffs on enemies wishing to trade on their turf.

BUYING and SELLING - a suggestion... I know everyone hates them... but this one is good and incidentally fixes another problem... JitaLAG

Say, I am an Amarrian pilot. I am on a mission to humiliate the Gallente Federation in Verge Vendor. I figure on a new ship or a refit and find a semi-neutral station that will let me dock and I look at the market. Fine so far...

But... I want to buy 6 Megapulse lasers and sell my Tachyons, but though I see the sell prices are close to those in my home space and the buy orders are player generated, the taxes for the transactions are astronomical compared to home! Why? Because the Gallente Federation don't like me killing their pilots!
It should be so!

In other words... logically, my market dealings should always be influenced by whether I am in friendly territory or not and that tax rate should relate directly to my standings in the faction space and station that I am in.
More so than right now... I mean all the way to prohibitive, if a Gallente dares scheme his way into an amarr station, he should pay! I am sure that the servants of all factions will agree.

Additional bonuses to this form of war taxation would be that Jita would disappear as a trade hub... home faction hubs would sprout wherever the conflicts demanded and localized lag would cease to be an issue.

Finding what I wanted, unless it was originated by my own faction or affiliates (like Carthum), would take a little doing.

If I wanted a Gallente designed bpo, I would have to find a way of getting one, rather than just go shopping in Jita or anywhere else.

I assume that the first thing warring factions would do would be to retract their technology from hostile marketplaces.

So if an Amarrian like myself wanted to purchase an Obelixbpo or a Blaster Rig, I would have to travel through hostile space, find a station where I could safely dock and that has the item I need, or at the very least make friends with someone prepared to commit the treason of selling one to me :)

Blueprints would be contraband in regions they didn't originate from... all that suff... you could have missions to capture a faction's newly released BPOs... that way technologies can be advanced with meaningful invention... ie; you need two races' bpo to create the currently known and all new faction ships... and if they are that hard to come by, they should be worth what the original faction BS used to be a year or two ago... Eve needs a new Impoc... :)

Big love ccp anyway... looking forward to it...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Stegnat Gless

Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:09:00 +0000

My thoughts on Factional Warfare -

Location
I think each conflict should be focussed on two separate low-sec constellations, one controlled by each side initially.
For those participating in FW, the fighting could extend into high-sec regions on both sides, but with faction navies responding to aggression.
One issue is how aggression flagging works when the combatants are in gangs of mixed FW/non-FW pilots.

Ranks
By signing up for a faction, the pilot can be awarded ranks.
Rank enables access to equipment and benefits useful in the conflict.
If a pilot just stops participating in a conflict, their rank starts to decay. Perhaps they can retire and retain some rank. Or they can resign.
Killing a high rank pilot gets a reward.

Objectives
Well, there's the obvious objective of kill as many of the enemy as you can.

Each faction could have a few continuously running, opposing, missions that a player can just join, and they change after some preset time.
For example, "We've discovered a secret base that we want destroyed" / "The enemy have discovered our secret base. Go and protect it until reinforcements can arrive"

Small groups could independently deploy hidden tactical structures giving some effect over a wide area
E.g. Short range system scanners that, over a long time, can detect nearby structures and give bonuses to anyone from the same faction using probes.
Other effects could include cyno field jamming or disruption, sensor dampening, speed reduction etc.
A structure that can be fitted with a gang warfare link that applies the effect to all friendly pilots in the area.
By deploying these, or finding and destroying them, a small group can give their faction an advantage.

Each faction, particularly the defending faction, probably has hidden gates, repair stations, supply depots etc.. established in a system. These could be available to pilots, perhaps for a charge, and become targets if found.

Victory conditions
I think the actual victory conditions, that result in a shift of control in a system, need to be fairly abstract, determined by the accumulated victories and defeats over time, not a count of structures established.

NPC Stations
Perhaps the treaties that established CONCORD also required that the empires grant a limited number of licenses to foreign non-military corporations to establish stations within their space? These treaties set limits on the actions these stations can take in the event of faction conflicts.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Cedric

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:24:00 +0000

Again, I haven't read everything cuz you ppl just keep posting too much!

Here are a few more ideas I've cooked up since scanning whats already out there.

Mechanics to Join
Have the players who want to participate in the FW system 'give a donation' to their respective Factions. This buys them an amount of time in the system, gives access to things of the FW nature (see below), and allows a mechanic (similar to starting a corp or alliance) for entry into they system.

War Zones
It makes sense to have Low sec be the 'contested territory.' High sec systems already have the structures in place to keep those systems safe, the low sec ones, though, do not. Now...how to protect your small gang from some totally unafilliated non-FW gate camp? Impose an 'act of war' penalty on characters, and those ganged w/ that non-FW character who engage a FW character.
"You've commited an act of war and are now enemies of the [insert faction name here]. You have been denied docking rights (or some other penalty) and must pay X amount of money for reparations to [faction]."
YOu can put some overview tag on those FW characters to make sure that everyone knows whats going on. In the same way you can penalize those FW players who would just use that as a means to engage in piracy.
"You have attacked a civilian under times of war [insert penalty here]."
As well, these characters are flagged as 'pirates' and are free game for any FW character to obliterate w/ the authority of the faction.

Faction Starbases
Since you have 'donated' to the cause, you get access to a 'hidden Faction Starbase.' It is not at a moon, or in a Deadspace zone. It is just floating out in space, completely hidden and unscannable. YOu can't gang warp there, you can't find it w/o using a bookmark that you get from whatever agent you talked to to make the donation in the first place. More to follow:

Base Channel
To communicate with other FWarriors, you get access (via your 'donation') to the "base Channel" Here you and all your buddies can figure out where you need to scout, who you need to 'assassinate', and how you're going to do it all. Still more:

Production
This has been something alot of ppl have talked about. I believe industry needs to be a backbone of sorts for this FW idea. It makes sense to need supplies and equipment. So, as an industrialist, you get access to a 'faction store' at the Faction Base you have the secret bookmark to. You can purchase Faction blueprints, only availble to produce at that station, and only available to place for sale on the 'faction market.' These faction markets are only available from the faction stations. SO, therefore, you can only purchase faction equipment if you're doing factional warfare. Seeing as how there will be some form of having to stay enlisted and not go AWOL, you will be able to keep the faction equipment from seeping into the market too much (maybe!)

Thats all I have, I hope you like it. This seems like a great idea if its done the right way (which is not necessarily mine!)

Dr Cedric

Lead Diplomat - Shock and Awe

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by SiJira

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:35:00 +0000

i expect factional warfare to bring lots to the game just like ambulation - if it doesnt ruin anything that already exists and by the looks of it itll boost losec then it will be a winner

only ambulation will top it once useful game features become implemented through it
____ __ ________
_sig below_
devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried!
_lies above_
CCP Morpheus was here
Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn
[yellow]Kaem

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:07:00 +0000

Originally by: Masu'di

I guess this adds to Star Fractions question, will you be able to fight against a faction as well as fight for a faction?

Fighting for no organisation (such as SF) is exactly what we're doing without FW. SF will be entirely able to go to low sec and gank FW participants as they can anyone.

As for High Sec, I'd love to see alliances able to declare war on Empires (translate in to- declare war on the various FW participants). That'd give alliances like Star Fraction an opportunity to compete as "official" anarchists, so to speak.
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Masu'di

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:38:00 +0000

Edited by: Masu''di on 18/09/2007 17:45:58

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Telemicus Thrace
Hmmm, well speaking as a role-player I have a bit of a quandry. Telemicus Thrace is regarded as a traitor to the Republic for helping Karishal Muritor. Aside from being a member of the Ushra'Khan my external loyalties are to the Thukker tribe.

To reflect this I have been working on my standings with the Thukker and plan to continue doing so. However the Republic has low standings to the Thukker. I of course want to help bring the Slaver Empire to it's knees but at the same time I do not wish to serve Midular nor lose standing with the Thukker.

Will this be an issue? will I just have to pony up the now sizable ISK to war dec loads of people? How long before fringe factions like the Thukker get involved?, assuming they would to some degree fight the Amarr?

We have every intention of expanding this outwards, but for the initial release we are planning on just the four empires. We've always wanted to get the other factions involved and I can see us doing this after the initial release.

Of course, there is nothing to stop you from signing up to fight for the Republic and still denounce Midular and get to shoot slavers at the same time. The Republics not going to hate you unless you start killing their ships.

Good to hear the Thukkers will get involved at some point, but it might be worth giving a little thought on how the sub factions will get added into the overall scheme, otherwise they could be severely disadvantaged coming in late.

Also, its worth pointing out that the Thukker and Minmatar are -2 standing with each other. They used to be + some years back, but this was changed without explanation quite some time back too. Problem is, he probably won't be able to work for the Minmatar Republic as will likely have a negative standing with them. If he does manage to work with them, then he will get more negative standing with Thukkers, causing problems when Thukkers are introduced to factional warfare.

I guess this adds to Star Fractions question, will you be able to fight against a faction as well as fight for a faction?

Es and Whizz is recruiting

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:48:00 +0000

Review on types of space;
Currently, we have highsec, lowsec and 0.0 and 0.0 with 4 levels of sov.

FW is a good ocasion to review this.

Let NPCs have sov level too, maybe even allow it to get up to 10 (where 5 requires planetary instalations and 10 requires terraformed planets where your people lived for at least last 5000 thousands of years ;) With the war raging over the universe, CONCORD should be reduced to limited areas - where empires agreed to have neutral ground for FW neutral pilots. This leaves us with following types of space;

0.0 - no rules, as is

0.0 with player sov - current rules, display it as sov level (its not 0.4 security, its 0.4 ISS sov!)

concord space - 0.5 to 1 - like current high sec. Everyone is welcome but people with low security standing. No player killing or Concorddoken, as today. Unify sec status to concord sov level. Neutral Carebears heaven.

FW empire controlled space - no Concord. Everyone friendly to faction is welcome. Enemy of faction is shot on sight. No shooting faction friends and neutrals or (not as invincible as Concord) faction fleet comes and faction players are called (beacon! local! etc). Ok to shoot faction enemies. Faction sov level 0.1 to 1.

FW contested space - replaces lowsec and is aded between fighting empires as war frontlines. FW players are sent here for most fights. Gates and stations may become temporarily controlled by faction that won last encounter for that gate. Faction NPCs fleets may patrol belts and can be killed. Most current lowsec is contested between empires and NPC pirate factions. Faction gaining advantage, instaling (destroyable) sentries and NPC fleets can get its sov level from 0.1 to 0.4.

All 0.0 regions with NPC sov become FW contested, where friends of say Sansha can live without fighting NPCs (to review - they will need other isk sources).

------

And for docking rights - I think that we can go wild with denying people docking rights if people also got player controlled deadspaces. In such station in enemy territory, You could build basic supply lines, make yourself much harder to scan and keep stuff brought by alts, from stations you cannot dock in.
In missions, NPC rats do this all the time - setup hidden bases in enemy territory. Given the fact, that PVP in deadspaces is very cool (no warp maneuvers over battlefield = better), that would be amazing thing to introduce :) With this, pirates and FW enemies no longer need docking rights and we have a new wonderful scenery for fights.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:54:00 +0000

Edited by: Macmuelli on 18/09/2007 14:55:17
What kind of rewards woud be come to ppls which join faction warfare?

Medaills / ranks ?

serveral advantages faction based ( % less prouction costs on faciltys ...

Will it be possible to close up stations ?

like if u do war against a faction and u start hammering your forces against them , they reduce industrial activity.. means close up temporary stations?

Will we see with them with them Faction specific implants ?

as a counterpart to pirate faction implants.

will there be a Rank/ medaill system which s gives me more acess to better qualtiy faction warfare missions?

How u wanna set them up ( pvp based) if with serveral time zones and activitys.
pa example u had to protect something... ( but need to log off for real life works etc..)
What is in this time?
Automaitcly units( faction based)ptotect it then?... include a reinforce mode like poses which let ppls give 24/ 48 time to build up a protecion force.

breg mac

ps : u can see this also as ideas

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:22:00 +0000

Originally by: Telemicus Thrace
Hmmm, well speaking as a role-player I have a bit of a quandry. Telemicus Thrace is regarded as a traitor to the Republic for helping Karishal Muritor. Aside from being a member of the Ushra'Khan my external loyalties are to the Thukker tribe.

To reflect this I have been working on my standings with the Thukker and plan to continue doing so. However the Republic has low standings to the Thukker. I of course want to help bring the Slaver Empire to it's knees but at the same time I do not wish to serve Midular nor lose standing with the Thukker.

Will this be an issue? will I just have to pony up the now sizable ISK to war dec loads of people? How long before fringe factions like the Thukker get involved?, assuming they would to some degree fight the Amarr?

We have every intention of expanding this outwards, but for the initial release we are planning on just the four empires. We've always wanted to get the other factions involved and I can see us doing this after the initial release.

Of course, there is nothing to stop you from signing up to fight for the Republic and still denounce Midular and get to shoot slavers at the same time. The Republics not going to hate you unless you start killing their ships.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:30:00 +0000

Naming contested systems;
Keep 5 names for each system in the contested FW areas, and change it dependent on current controller;
No control; AB-CDE
Caldari; Abcdhikken
Amarr; Abcetheba
Gallennte; Abceille
Minmatar; Abc

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Malachon Draco

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:02:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

On forcing people to fly the "right" ships: it's an appealing idea, but I think it ends up being counterproductively restrictive. As has been pointed out though, don't expect to get equipment for Minmatar ships from the Amarr! The biggest problem with this sort of approach though is just that balance work is done on the basis that gangs contain a mix of races, and rebalancing everything to accommodate single-race gangs would both be a massive workload and create undesirable knock-on effects for the game as a whole.

I don't think it needs to be that unbalanced if you work it out in concrete terms. I understand the point that a fleet consisting of just 1 race is somewhat unbalanced compared to fleets that combine various race ships, but on the other hand, if the rewards for restricting yourself are suitably high, it doesn't have to be unbalanced in the long run. If rewards include stuff like Tribal Tempests, or maybe new ships like faction Sleipnirs for Minmatar, or Rattlesnakes and Caldari State Ravens for the people who 'gimp' themselves initially a bit by only flying one race can later catch up by getting all the really cool faction toys.

And I wouldn't suggest that everyone who flies for a certain faction to be forced to fly only those faction ships, but I do think that you could introduce 'tiers' in faction involvement. From 'normal guys' who just go for helping the Minmatar in their spare time and fly whatever they like, to exclusively Minmatar corporations that work towards becoming the 'Pride of the Republic', flying exclusively Minmatar ships, with access to the finest and newest toys the Minmatar fleet has to offer.

------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Telemicus Thrace

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:15:00 +0000

Hmmm, well speaking as a role-player I have a bit of a quandry. Telemicus Thrace is regarded as a traitor to the Republic for helping Karishal Muritor. Aside from being a member of the Ushra'Khan my external loyalties are to the Thukker tribe.

To reflect this I have been working on my standings with the Thukker and plan to continue doing so. However the Republic has low standings to the Thukker. I of course want to help bring the Slaver Empire to it's knees but at the same time I do not wish to serve Midular nor lose standing with the Thukker.

Will this be an issue? will I just have to pony up the now sizable ISK to war dec loads of people? How long before fringe factions like the Thukker get involved?, assuming they would to some degree fight the Amarr?

>> RECRUITING <<

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sulerian

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:51:00 +0000

you are WAY overanalyzing this guys

the original comment was about enemy x docking at empire y's station - if empire y dislikes ship x if it is reasonable to think they could blow up enemy x's ship as it comes in to dock

oh yeah in Eve station defenses are so pathetic enemy x can TANK empire y's station close in defense emplacements

second simply view unfriendly stations in another empire's space as embassies - sovereign territory of the owners's empire given the economic nature of stations via its market orders/blueprints/missions this makes a lot of sense

third besides the escalating docking fee concept mentioned, station services could be affected after a certain level neg standing like repairs becoming less effective such as a 50% reduction in total repairs possible up to at -10 no repairs. Fees top access markets could be boosted

fourth how is corp standing going to play into this

example my corp has a guy with uber Minn standing with multiple 10 agent standings who stays in Metro with rest of us in Amarr space?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:06:00 +0000

Another quicky, i think your all assuming that we are going to require some kind of super high standing that to join factional warfare. This simply will not be the case so dont panic people :)

The number we had entertained to join FW was 1.0 standing towards faction. Of course this is subject to change and review but its a number we are happy with atm.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mikal Drey

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:51:00 +0000

hey hey

Just a Couple of Q's please.

As FW is based in low sec and not empire i tae it there isnt a war dec system in place for it and the low sec element is because you get non consensual pvp etc etc.

If i go and find my local amarrian scumbag and shoot the bastard what happens to my sec status ? What system will be in place to diffrenciate between FW and common piracy ?

Also . . . . . Should i wish to go hunt said amarrian scumbag and his caldari **** wife and dog faced children how do i get into their systems without going through empire space to get into their low sec systems ?

If im -9 to amarr then everytime i go on a hunting trip then im gonna get fubarred by the local and soon to be boosted navy ?

Also as this is "low sec" based whats to stop me from cynoing into amarrian low sec with a hel and just smartbombing the gates till ive ammassed enought KMs to sate my blood lust ?

Many Thanks
Mikal Drey
Loyal Minmatar.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Aryandi

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:41:00 +0000

WHY more low sec?

You asked for why, and you are right that so far I have presented the idea but not the reasons for it.

There are several reasons:

1. It breaks up the markets and the empires, make them feel separate. At the moment they all blurr into one and most people neither know nor care where the boundaries are. It's just another region. If travel from Gallente to Caldari space was risky business then that would open up a lot of new options for traders and PvPers and also decentralise the market a little.

2. It gives a natural war zone for faction warfare to use in addition to the other low sec space around the empires.

3. More space for things to happen in. Eve is starting to feel very crowded, more so in 0.0 and empire but more space in general will help.

4. Potentially in the future those systems could become a proper war zone, with the factions fighting for sovereignty and control of those systems.

Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Aryandi

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:29:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Oh one thing we missed was that the standings requirements wont be against every individual in the corp, just the corporation as a whole.

The rest of the posts we will try to reply to tomorrow if we can. Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys, keep them coming please!

Are you going to do something about the way corporate standings work then? At the moment if you want to accept new players it is IMPOSSIBLE to have good standings with caldari state.

For example we have a high sec POS and we have 3 members with >8 standing with caldari state that we anchored before we started recruiting.

Despite the fact that virtually every member of our corp has positive caldari standings the corporate standing is around 1.0 - simply because we recruit new players and all it takes is one or two people with a standing of 0 or 1 and suddenly the entire corporate standing is screwed.

Someone REALLY needs to revisit this mechanism. I have been thinking of a few ways it could work and am not completely happy with them but there are definitely options. For example corp standing could be the standing of the highest member of the corp (as he is the corp spokesman/the one with the contacts) then subtract every negative standing (as people with negative standings are considered a security risk).

i.e. if we have one guy with 9.0 standing, and 2 with -0.5 then the corporate standing would be 8.0 as we have someone caldari state really like and trust but we also have 2 people they consider a security risk. (everyone else being ignored as they are not considered a security risk and the highest standing guys are the ones the state are talking to).

Another alternative (and I quite like this one) would be to only count the standings of directors and CEOs to average - possibly with reductions for security risks as described above.

Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:12:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Oh one thing we missed was that the standings requirements wont be against every individual in the corp, just the corporation as a whole.

The rest of the posts we will try to reply to tomorrow if we can. Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys, keep them coming please!

Thats a baaaaaaaaad idea. Speak to the guys who dealt with Jump Clones and they'll tell you.

Corp standings are worthless to the point of obscurity, in that any corp of more than about 10 active members is guaranteed to have enough variety of standings to reduce all of them to an average of about "1".

With Jump Clones, this meant that anyone who wanted to get a JC was required to mindlessly quit their corp for 24 hours, buy the clone, then rejoin. This will just happen to FW corps too- people will quit so the corp can join up with only 1 member in it and have the right standings, then everyone will rejoin. This doesn't really achieve anything other than give a silly bureaucratic hoop to jump through.

JC's have since had this changed so personal standings count where appropriate. It'd be daft to have to learn the same lesson again for FW.
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Axel Vindislaga

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:04:00 +0000

---------------->For example, if you're a pirate, or someone with a bio that reads "Death to the Caldari", you probably shouldn't have that 7.5 standing from working for CalNav's agents so much. I guess what I'm saying is this: exclusion from a station might be too harsh, but exclusion from their agents is a must.<------------------

I am horrorfied. This is imbecilic. Station exclusion to harsh for a Genocidal manic??? If the hated faction ever discovered the opinion of this "pirate" they would destroy the "pirate" INSTANTLY and petition CONCORD deny CLONING RIGHTS. However this does raise a few interesting thoughts regarding CONCEALED IDENTITIES and ILLEGAL CLONING. Damn that'd make things complex and seedy. I like it.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Axel Vindislaga

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:38:00 +0000

The role of CONCORD is clearly critical. Rather than dissolved CONCORD's role needs to be boosted. The engagements would be illegal. The hardliners bent on war would be people like MILOSOVIC in Serbia. Every now and then CONCORD should show up on missions and annihilate the all the evil aggressors who are engeged in ILLEGAL warfare. They would provide the answer to the changing borders question in that they could step in on the side of the losers as an omnipotent barrier until they recover perhaps. BUT if it is the destiny of EVE online to become EVE TOTAL WAR ONLINE then I guess those who scream for war will have their way as they do in this world. You can see from posts here in this thread who the losers are going to be already with people piping up about who they will prefer to comit genocide upon. Also there is vessel missing in this game....The JUMPGATE CREATION SHIP. This is the ship that is launched through a gate to build the gate on the other side. Also the gates need to be able to be AIMED at different systems. Thats me for now AXEL out.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nyphur

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 01:20:00 +0000

Edited by: Nyphur on 18/09/2007 01:26:47

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Tharrn
If you want to make it the awesome version then please, please, please make it so that someone who has ****ed off a faction enough can no longer dock at their stations. Nothing turns me off as much as supposed enemies of Amarr being based out of the Emperor Family Station in Amarr...

This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.

Docking fees, then?
I've touched on my expectations from faction warfare on my website when discussing the recent closure of the AURORA department and future cancellation of major storyline arcs. There's not much more I could add without spending a few pages babbling like I usually do so I'll leave it with that.

All I'll say is faction warfare had better be pretty amazing. Good luck.

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Oh one thing we missed was that the standings requirements wont be against every individual in the corp, just the corporation as a whole.

Are you aware that real player corporations always have messed up faction standings? I have 7.59 to Gallente Federation but my corp only has 1.16. This is the typical thing you'll find in most corps and those with high faction standing are usually only populated with zero-standing alts and artificially increased by hiring someone with high standings to join the corp and run a storyline mission or two.

If you really want people to be able to participate on the corporate level without forming all new corps just for the war, you'll have to allow corps to elect a number of members whose standings will be representative of the corp and all others ignored. I have amarr pilots in my corp who run amarr missions but if I were to enter my corp in the war, we'd side with the Gallente.

Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by George K'ntara

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:43:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet
One note -- Ginger, you say in your blog that it will allow participation on a corporate or individual level, but what about on an alliance level? This would seem kind of imperative for entities like the CVA, Electus Matari, the Acheron Federation, and the Apex Conglomerate. I can certainly see how this could have been an oversight, but it's something that definitely needs to get addressed.

In the current design their is no mechanic for whole alliances joining factional warfare. However due to the additional time we have on this were going to be looking at ways to incorporate it effectively.

2 random ideas to make it possible to rasie standings from really low levels. One, role it into bounty hunting someway, because even a fraction that wouldn't trust you to fly a mission for them will still let you kill their criminals. This may include creating NPC targets for bounties or not. Two, be able to bribe your way to the point where you can start the more traditional route of building up standings.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kell Braugh

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:06:00 +0000

I didn't see it mentioned here, but I personally think it would be cool to log on one day, undock, and have two Faction Navies going at it. And even more cool would be the ability to join in on the spot. Why the need for agents, etc.
We all picked a side when deciding on our characters, so people asking for amnesty now--you made your choice--live with it!

I honestly think this is a great way to get the non-RP pilots to give in a little bit and immerse themselves.

I await the day when the war cry goes out on local to rally to troops and head to war!

---
I do understand though having a bunch of huge ships (i.e. 30-45 BBs going toe to toe) *might* cause some system lag, I only hope for the best. Just don't make it a Lvl-based mission thing-- the mission-type restrictions really hurt pilots who only later on in thier life start doing missions. Do you know how much it sucks to go from a Raven / Scorp / Drake daily setup to doing level one missions? Let *players* choose there level of play

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:43:00 +0000

Oh one thing we missed was that the standings requirements wont be against every individual in the corp, just the corporation as a whole.

The rest of the posts we will try to reply to tomorrow if we can. Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys, keep them coming please!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fergus Runkle

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:32:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Currently we forssee battles over low sec systems, fighting can occur everywhere but low sec will be the focal point of the too and fro initially.

Looking back over the problems Aurora had with people "events griefing", how are you going to stop those "Faction smartbomb" fitting Mothership's from sitting in systems where a FW "event" is on going and taking out everyone on all sides ?

Or does this come under "Eve is a harsh place and not even the Navies can stop Motherships" ?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:02:00 +0000

a few examples
1.) Amarr Noob decides to fully commit himself for the cause of Amarr. He never had run missions before. He spends all 10 FLP for Amarr and gets a +10 for his FLP and +5 points for being Amarr. This results in +15 Amarr, -10 Minmatar, +7,5 Caldari, -7.5 Gallente standing. Flying an Executioner which gives a +5 boost towards all factions he becomes a valid PvP war target for Minmatar pod pilots with his -5 standing (-10 + 5 = -5) if he enters 0.5 or higher Minmatar Republic space. Republic Navy Will only attack him with frigates if he enters a 1.0 Minmatar system. Flying an Omen he becomes a valid PvP war target for Minmatar rebels everywhere. Republic Navy will attack him with frigates if he enters a 0.5 system. They attack him with cruisers if he enters a 0.7 system. They attack him with battleships if he enters a 0.9 system. Flying an industrial which gives a +10 boost resulting in a neutral Minmatar standing. He can fly unharmed whereever he wants.

2.) Jim Nefantar is a noob like Amarr Noob from the example above. He is of Minmatar orign, fighting for Amarr. He never had run missions before. He spends all 10 FLP for Amarr and thus gets a +10 for Amarr. This results in +10 Amarr, -10 Minmatar, +7,5 Caldari, -7.5 Gallente standing. He is not allowed to spend his 5 minmatar race points because he had chosen the amarrian side. He can do all the same just like Amarr Noob from the example above. His lower positive Amarr standing however doesn't enable him to have an equal rank compared to Amarr Noob. He will have to work harder to reach same ranks. Some ranks he will never be able to reach. He is allowed to fly a Tempest (-7penalty for Battleship, - 3 penalty for hostile design) in Amarr Prime.

3.)Mary Trader is a Gallente who had run many missions for the Amarr Empire in the past. She already has a +10 standing towards the Amarr Empire, a +7 standing towards Caldari, a -6 standing towards Minmatar and a -3 standing towards Gallente. She is tired of fighting and wants to make lots of profit instead. She spends 6 of her 10 FLP for Minmatar which results in a +4 Amarr standing (10-6), +4 for Caldari (7 - 6*0,5), +0 Gallente (-3 + 6*0,5), and 0 Minmatar (-6 + 6). Even without spending any FLP she would not have been a valid war target inside Minmatar space flying an industrial or freighter but she decided to do it this way so she could mine unharmed in other ships in amarrian ships. 4 of her 10 FLP she keeps save for future use. She would be allowed to fly t1 amarrian battleships in Amarr Prime. The biggest gallentean warship she would be allowed to fly in Amarr Prime would be a cruiser. Flying a Dominix would make her a valid war target for Amarrians if she enters 0.4 or higher amarrian systems.

4.) Bob Exrebel is a Minmatar who had seen the light of Amarr very late. He killed tons of Amarrians in the past and has a +10 Minmatar standing and a -7 Amarr standing. He spends all his FLP for Amarr resulting in a +3 Amarr standing and a neutral Minmatar standing. The Minmatar can't believe what they see and decide not to declare him as valid war target for now because of his neutral standing. The Amarr on the other hand don't trust him much. His +3 standing is granting him a liscence to kill only in 0.8 and higher systems. However he is not allowed flying big ships in this systems. The biggest ship he is allowed to fly in a amarrian 0.8 system would be an amarrian t2 battlecruiser. He could enter Amarr Prime with a t1 minmatar cruiser.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:02:00 +0000

5.) Jack Zealot is a fanatic Amarr who already has a +10 standing towards Amarr and a -7 standing towards Minmatar. He spends all his FLP for Amarr and is proud of his amarrian orign. This results in a +25 amarr standing and a -17 Minmatar standing. Rumours say he soon will reach the rank of an Admiral after doing some final tests of faith. Flying an industrial which gives a +10 boost towards all factions would allow him to enter 0.1 or 0.2 Minmatar systems unharmed. Flying a t1 fregate or bigger ships makes him a valid war target for Minmatar pod pilots everywhere. A Punisher would give a +5 boost resulting in a -12 minmatar standing. This means Republic Navy frigates will attack him as soon as he enters Minmatar 0.3 territory. If he enters a 0.5 Minmatar system Republic Navy cruisers will start to attack him. Republic Navy battleships would attack him as soon as he enters 0.7 systems.

asymetrical balance
If we look at the first 2 examples (Amarr Noob, Jim Nefantar) we can see both have the full liscence to kill everyhwere with their +10 and +15 Amarr standings. They are allowed to attack Minmatar whereever they want. On the other hand they could reach 0.4 Minmatar space while flying a t1 frigate not being a valid PvP target for Minmatar. This is intended! Any kind of gang participation, remote repping etc or attacking a hostile ship would change this of course. The intention is to simulate some kind of 'nobody cares for harmless rookies as long as they fly harmless ships' feeling. Let them have a look first. Give them the chance to decide for themself when to attack or when to hide. I envision small roaming frigate gangs of new players who can have some fun hunting unprotected haulers in enemy space or defending friendly territory not worrying too much about veterans in big ships. Not worrying about running into gang squads in friendly territory. Flying bigger ships than frigates would make such a thing a lot harder (impossible with this examples). Doing some missions for Amarr will change this very fast, too.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:01:00 +0000

Joe heard stories about one giant trade hub in Jita where everybody in the universe was doing their business. Today there are at least 4 trade hubs. One for each faction. And this hubs are no longer located in 1.0 systems. It is easier to trade in a 0.6 system because here more people have docking rights, because here the factory slots are cheaper and last but not least the taxes are lower. War taxes in high sec space killed the trade. In a 1.0 system factory slots are only affordable for those with the highest standings. Most of the time this slots are occupied by the Amarr Navy. Business in 1.0 would be completely dead if there wouldnt be this new reprocessing plants that have an improved refining rate for Veldspar. Some traders make some good profit because of this new situation. They import rare modules from hostile space. They haul tritanium from 1.0 systems to the new 0.6 trade hubs close behind the border zone. Most profit comes from trading in high end minerals. It makes a difference if one of the major alliances from 0.0 boycotts the Empire. Then it's time for those traders to import this minerals even from Minmatar space.

Then Joe met some likeminded Amarrians who were fighting the rebels in the border zone. He decided to join this group but with his limited liscence he was useless for this group. He had to show full dedication. He needed the full liscence to kill. So he went to his agent and spend all his FLP for the Empire swearing the oath to fight to death no matter what comes.

This was a great jump in his career. With his 10 FLP and his 5 points being an Amarr + his 3 points standings he made doing missions he now has a +18 standing towards the Empire allowing him to wear the title of a Chief Master Seargant. His corp member, a converted Brutor, even had a 5 amarr standing from doing missions and also spend all his 10 FLP for the Empire but he is missing 5 points for not being an Amarr and so he only reached the rank of Staff Seargent with his +15 Amarr standings. The Brutor however already had access to level 4 agents getting better missions and rewards while Joe still worked his way up doing level 3 missions.

His corp became famous in defending the amarrian border zone and more often they attacked rebel space. Fighting in hostile border zones was the same as defending their own border zone. But the fight over the systems was a stalemate. They had to stop the rebels supply lines if they wanted to be successfull. Their big and slow batteships which they have used with success in the big battles in the border zone were to slow to operate behind enemy lines, though. The Minmatar Ladar stations found them quick and send some Republic Fleet batteships to scramble and stop them. They might be able to kill the Republic Navy battleships with a few losses on their side but soon there were rebel pod pilots supporting their Navy. Brute force isn't working here. They have to use smaller ships to reach the Minmatar 0.6 system where they supposed a ammuntion facility. They reached the system and faced some heavy armed Stabbers obviously piloted by some minmatar rookies. He had to think how his carreer started. Will his shiny new Retribution hold and will he be able to kill those Stabbers and the ammunition facility?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:01:00 +0000

Edited by: Arderich on 17/09/2007 22:03:44
Numbers, tables, examples
ship standings
Flying a certain class/type of ship can increase or decrease your standings

classes:
Industrials/freighters give a +10 standing boost towards all factions
t1 frigates give a +7 standing boost towards all factions
t2 frigates give a +4 standing boost towards all factions
t1 destroyer give a +5 standing boost towards all factions
t2 destroyer don't give a standing boost
t1 cruisers don't give a standing boost
t2 cruisers give a -3 standing penalty towards all factions
t1 battlecruisers give a -3 standing penalty towards all factions
t2 battlecruisers give a -5 standing penalty towards all factions
t1 battleships give a -7 standing penalty towards all factions
t2 battleships give a -10 standing penalty towards all factions

(following numbers are only valid for war ships, not for civilian ships. They are only valid in friendly territory. I don't want to encourage Amarrians flying Minmatar ships while operating in enemy territory. I want to make it harder to fly foreign designs in friendly space. Work for the privilege)
types:
Hostile ship designs give a -3 standing penalty
Allied ship designs don't give a boost/penalty
Friendly ship designs give a +3 standing boost

Liscence to kill
You need a certain standing towards your chosen faction to be allowed to 'play the police'. This standings are not modified by the ship you are flying.

1 can attack in 1.0 home systems
2 can attack in 0.9 home systems
...
8 can attack in 0.3 home systems
9 can attack in 0.2 home systems
10 and above can attack valid war targets everywhere including hostile space.

valid war target
You are a valid war target in a system with a security rating X if your negative standing is Y. This standings are modified by the ship class you are flying, but not by the specific type. There is no difference between a Punisher or Rifter)

-10 and below can be attacked everywhere
-9 can be attacked in 0.1 and higher hostile systems
...
-2 can be attacked in 0.8 and higher hostile systems
-1 can be attacked in 0.9 and higher hostile systems
neutral can not be attacked

NPC Navy response
The hostile NPC Navy will attack you with different ship classes according to your negative standings. Your standing is modified by the ship class you are flying, not by type. You are a valid war target for Navy frigates in a system with a security rating X if your negative standing is Y.

-15 and below, frigates will attack you everywhere
-14 frigates will attack you in 0.1 systems
...
-6 frigates will attack you in 0.9 systems
-5 frigates will attack you in 1.0 systems

-17 and below, cruisers will attack you everywhere
-16 cruisers will attack you in 0.1 systems
...
-8 cruisers will attack you in 0.9 systems
-7 cruisers will attack you in 1.0 systems

-19 and below, battleships will attack you everywhere
-18 battleships will attack you in 0.1 systems
....
-10 battleships will attack you in 0.9 systems
-9 battleships will attack you in 1.0 systems

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:00:00 +0000

The following stuff is only a summery of previously described ideas in form of a short story and 'some' additional detailed explanations with numbers and stuff.

How would EVE look like wih those standing changes?
When Joe Amarr was a teenager and there was peace between the factions he heard stories about terrorists misusing the situation and bringing the terror right in front of the docking bay of the Emperor's station in Amarr Prime. They even were allowed to dock in the station some seconds after their attacks. The Yulai Convention made some really stupid laws, Joe thought. Today such a thing is no longer possible. Amarr Prime is a fortress. Pilots either have to have very good standings to reach this system flying warships or they have to fly civilian ships. Tempests became a rare sight in Amarr Prime. Only those with very high standings were allowed to enter the system. Usually they were flown by some Nefantar who made missions all their life for the Ammatar Mandate.

Joe Amarr got his pod liscence just a week ago. He wasn't sure if he was already strong enough to fight the big guys in the big ships in the border zone. He told his agent about his concerns and chose to only spend 3 of his 10 FLP for the Amarr Empire - for now. Instead of fighting in the heavy contested border zones where he had to fear he would be obliterated by big battleships, he patrolled some 0.7 - 0.8 systems with his Omen class cruiser where the rebels rarely broke through. If they did, they managed it only in small frigates. It was still a dangerous job. Some of those frigates were t2 fitted and often flown by the most experienced rebels. His Omen cruiser often had to fight against small interceptors such as the Claw. Without the Coercers by his side flown by his classmates who also just got their pod liscence he would have died even more often. But most of the time he was succesfull because they quickly had support from other pod pilots. Nobody wants rebel scum in core Amarrian systems. Many new facilities were intalled to supply the frontlines with new ships and ammo. Protection for this facilities is weak. The big guns are needed at the frontline. Frigate squads behind enemy lines can cause havoc to the infrastructure of the war machinery. Patrolling high sec systems was as much important for the war as fighting the big battles in the border zones.

After some time of service his skills became better. He also did some missions which increased his standings for the Amarr Empire. At the same time the rebels took notice of him as pod pilot and reported him as a growing threat to the Republic HQ. In the very beginning of his career before he talked to his agent he could fly to Pator with his Omen if he wanted to. This is no longer possible with his new standings. Now he would have to use a civilian ship like a shuttle or an industrial. But why would he want such a thing? He is not one of the neutral traders who lick everbodies ass for the right to trade. He knows his duty is to fight for God and Empire and he is proud that the Minmatar don't like him.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:59:00 +0000

changing system sovereignity
I am afraid I can only see problems but no good solution. I like the approach of Guomindong in theory but I see problems because of not balanced numbers on the opposing sides of war. I hope not to see Caldari steamrolling over the universe in 2 weeks. I also fear it can only be balanced with some artificial crutches such as the weaker side getting more powerfull NPC wingmen in number and/or quality but then I fear situations such as 1:1 combat where the gallente always wins against the caldari because he has more powerfull wingmen by his side. If you must introduce wingmen then please dont give us Amarr wingmen that only do em damage, hehe. I hope not to see solutions that other MMOGs prefer such as restricted battlegrounds but as I have said I dont see a good solution myself. I like the possiblity to conquer hostile space but I just don't see a satisfying solution.

destroying stations
I hope it will be possible to destroy stations and outposts after you have controlled the system for a long timeframe such as 2-3 months. Same in 0.0. Most definitly I find Minmatar stations should no longer exist inside Amarr space and vice versa. Problem I see are jobs done in factory/lab slots, assets in hangars, agents. I think all this stuff should (mysteriously) survive and being transported to the next available station. I don't really see a problem here. I just see the opportunity to make the contract (transport) system being used (if it will be possible to allow larger m in contracts to allow transport of ships with freighters).

small and big objectives all over the universe
I hope to see the whole universe as some kind of battleground - not only a few selected constellations in the border zone. From 0.0 to 1.0 core systems. Whereever you are your goal should be to protect your factions assets and territory or to attack player/NPC/ships/assets. With my idea of a 'terrace' like standing system it is possible to make high sec systems safer than low sec or 0.0 systems. People that think they are not ready for the big action in low sec border zones might participate in protecting high sec systems where only smaller hostile ships can enter. Instead of having a 'FW ON/OFF' button every player can choose how much risk he is willing to take by spending his FLP. I think there should be unsecured war targets in your factions high sec space such as ammunition facilities, training camps, transport convoys, energy collectors which are needed to support the battlestations in the border zones, etc that can be attacked by hostile frigates (big hostile ships would have huge problems to reach such systems because of NPC Navy). The difficult task for such hostile frigates should be to avoid/defeat other players who are allowed to fly bigger ships in their very own garden. This way even the 1 month old noob in his Maller can become a very valueable man if he protects such high sec installations against more experienced players who are penalized to fly smaller ships in hostile territory. I see opportunities not only for combat pilots but also for scouts and haulers (find the installation, rescue the war prisoners, steel prototype).

Big objectives should be where the big ships can be used, in the border zones. I would like to see really damn heavy battlestations (without passive shield recharge) with billions of HP so that it will need days or even weeks to bring them down. Sounds boring? I admit this idea could fail badly but it wouldnt do any harm. I envision a 'meeting' point where heavy combat occurs all the time. The defenders sometimes might have the time to remote repair the battlestation a bit (gain 1 LP for each 100 HP repaired), another time the attacker has great advantages in numbers (and gain 1 LP for each 1000dmg done), the next time the NPC Navy might come to protect the station.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:59:00 +0000

War is not only about pew pew
I think the logistics and intelligence should play an important role, too. The previously mentioned ammunition facilities in high sec space f.e. could respawn each downtime at a new location. In hostile space you might want a blockade runner/transport ship with your frigate sqaud to haul the war prisoners back to safety. Destroying one of those small unprotected energy collectors with your frigate in a hostile 0.6 could cause more damage to the battlestation in the 0.1 borderzone (and give you more reward in form of LP) than shooting at it directly with your dreadnought. In your own territory you might have to haul ice to the border zones to resupply the POS and battlestation or to supply the installations in high sec. Ice miners and haulers are badly needed to keep the war machine running. I liked the ideas of Patch86. I would like to see inter-factional trade becoming more important but at the same time a lot harder (f.e. shortage of nocxium in amarr space -> must be imported by neutral traders or stolen by amarrian frigate squads operating deep in Minmatar space).

pirates
Most of us agree that the majority of (heavy) combat should and will happen in low sec border zones. If I would be a pirate I now would smile and wait for lots of juicy targets entering low sec. At the same time I fear that FW could fail badly if most people still are afraid to enter low sec systems. On the other hand I certainly don't want to nerf the pirate profession even more. It is already reduced to some few gate camps. Belt pirating, solo combat is almost non existant. (This is a whole different topic. Just let me say I don't like some game mechanics such as increased HP or sentry guns because they encourage blobbing). I have no solution for the pirate problem, only one idea. Separate on map the ship destroyed view into two different views: ships legally destroyed (war between corps, FW) and ships illegal destroyed (those kills which gave a sec hit). This way it would be easier to determine if there is a FW battle going on or a pirate gate camp. This is by far no complete solution but at least one option to improve the situation.

channels - conversation
I think new channels (faction, region, constellation, special tasks) will be needed limited to those who fight for one faction. I guess the FW crowd will be highly unorganized. At the same time a fear an organized 0.0 alliance, if they join FW, could run over even 5000 empire based people with ease. Let's see what will happen...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:58:00 +0000

Now each individual player has the chance to choose either a side or to choose to be neutral without problems regardless which missions he had done before. Whole corporations/alliances can do it now too as long as all members agree to do the same. No need for mission grinding but everyone and every corp/alliance must make a choice. Corps who have fully committed Minmatar and Amarr as members in their corp will have problems to find a place in empire space where all can meet. It makes sense for whole corporations to make a collective decison but it allows coorps to have neutral and fully committed players at the same time.

For what are the standings good for?
PVE/NPC: Based on the security status of the system the standings can be used for docking rights, access to market, tax, reaction of NPC ships, etc. This can be tuned in a way that a Minmatar with a very bad amarr standing can't dock in Amarr Prime but still can dock in a 0.5 Amarr system. He would be attacked by the Amarr Navy in Amarr Pime but not in the 0.5 system or he would be attacked only by frigates in 0.5 but by battleships in Amarr Prime. You get the idea. After some tweaking I am sure it can work.

PVP: Based on the (positive) standing of your char you are allowed to shoot those with bad standings towards your chosen faction. This means if you want your liscence to kill every hostile everywhere then you must have very good standings (spend all your FLP for one faction). Those with less positive standings have a limited liscence to kill and can only shoot hostiles if the hostiles enter high security systems of your faction. However he can't go to low sec or hostile space to shoot players. The peacefull neutral to all trader doesn't have the liscence to kill. Vice versa you can only become a valid target if your standing is bad enough for the system you are in according to the security status. The Minmatar with insignificant negative Amarr standings still can visit most amarrian systems without becoming a valid pvp target. The professional Minmatar rebel with the full liscence to kill from the Republic and with bad negative amarr standings however can be shot on sight wherever he is.

Another 'crazy' idea: standings for ships
With the system described above we could f.e. deny docking rights for hostiles. However I think it should also make a difference what kind of ship you are flying. Flying a harmless industrial/freighter for example could give a +10 standing boost towards all factions. Flying a frigate could give a +5 boost. Flying a Tempest could give a -3 penalty towards Amarr and a +3 boost towards Minmatar. This way you still might be able to dock in Jita or Amarr Prime if you are flying a harmless civilian ship even with bad standings. Or you could avoid the response of Amarr Navy battleships by flying only a frigate (Rifter/Jaguar) deep into hostile space. This frigate would only be attacked in high-sec systems and only attacked by Navy frigates but would be ignored in low sec. The Tempest however would cause a different response from the Amarr Navy because it would be considered to be a greater threat. Again I think this can be tweaked that converted Minmatar still can fly for the Amarr Empire and visit Amarr Prime in their Tempest if their standing is good enough but it will be impossible for rebels with bad amarr standing doing the same.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Arderich

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:57:00 +0000

This one is going to become the longest post on eve-online ever... enjoy :)

IMHO there are a few conditions that must be fulfilled to make factional warfare a success.

1.) make it believeable, make it feel 'real'
I only want to mention a few problems I see. One thing are docking rights in hostile systems. Another thing I fear to come is a 'FW option turned on' vs a 'FW option turned off' gameplay experience. I think everybody should somehow be affected by FW even if he chooses to be neutral. One last thing is, and I know many others disagree with me, I think the race of your char and the ship your char is flying should have some kind of effect in FW, too.

2.)make FW easy accessible for everyone without too much mission grinding
The problem are the countless mixed corps with mixed individual standings...

3.)make FW easy avoidable, allowing players to choose a neutral position even after a lot of mission grinding
Problem are players with already very high/low faction standings but who don't want to participate in FW (pvp).

A modified new standing system
I think all the previously mentioned problems can be solved with a new modified standing system. My proposal is solely working with individual standings but not with corp/alliance standings. This allows current corporations to survive but it will cause problems for corps to have Minmatar and Amarr participants of the FW in one and the same corp. Each player can individually choose his commitment to FW instead of having a simple 'FW ON/OFF' function. This allows fine nuances between neutrallity towards everyone to full commitment for one side. If someone doesn't want to take full risk but still wants to get involved in FW somehow then it will be possible, too.

Our current standing system that goes from -10 to +10 could be extended to a -25 to +25 system. The additional 15 standing points are influenced by the race of a player's char and by his choice to join a side or to stay neutral. Let me explain:

Each char has 10 so called 'faction loyality points' (FLP) free to choose. He can go to an amarrian agent and choose to spend zero to ten points for the Amarr faction. Dependent on his old and still active base standings (the -10 to +10 system) he can now gain a standing between 0 (neutral, if he had a -10 standing based on his missions he had done before) up to a +20 standing (if he already had a +10 standing). He also could distribute his FLP between several different factions to equalize his standing, to choose a neutral role in FW.

Spending 1 FLP for one faction causes a full penalty towards the opposing faction. Example: 1 FLP for amarr results in a standing boost of 1 for Amarr, 0.5 for Caldari, -0,5 for Gallente, -1 for Minmatar.

It should be allowed to switch one already used FLP every 2 or 4 or 8 weeks. This way it will be possible to join the opposing side, but not over one night. It will need some time.

The remaining 5 points in my -25 to +25 system would come from the race of your char. You are only allowed to spend this additional 5 points if you join the faction of your race. This means only an amarrian bloodline can reach a standing above +20 for Amarr. This 5 points come without penalty and are solely used for standings above 20 which allow highest ranks. Reason is that I don't want to see 1000 Admirals of Brutor orign in the Sarum Navy. It could be used f.e. in ambulation, too. Only those with an Amarr standing above 20 have the right to sit in the first row in church. Let me say that rewards which can be cashed into isk such as modules etc would be the same for all who fight for Amarr no matter the race. It's only about status (ranks) to have a standing above 20.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Duke Orsino

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:19:00 +0000

It's an exciting concept, but the learning curve in Eve is so steep that I wonder if new players will have any breathing room or get swept into massive PVP before they're ready? Also, what about those of us who want to trade, mine and manufacture? When wars sweep through in RL, everybody suffers, so I guess there is a realism element in this...but I'm holding out hope that quiet corners will be reserved for peaceful folks like me.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ujagar Sommdax

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:16:00 +0000

I can imagine faction warfare being cool in many ways however I would like my corp to be able to chose under what faction banner we would fight.

- - - - -

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Alexander Knott

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:47:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi

#2 Faction-influence on the market. I think it's already a bit annoying that it's hard to see who's selling and buying, that you can't avoid selling your goodies to your enemies or vice-versa. I hope CCP will implement something for this in Factional Warfare. An extra button that you don't want to sell towards people that have negative standings towards your faction/corporation or someone that is at war. Let stuff you can't buy because the sellers don't want you to appear in orange-red or something. Perhaps even let the station-owner (which could be a npc faction, but perhaps a 0.0 alliance too) enforce it, so there isn't stuff that can be sold to foes of the station-owner. Let trading for someone that has a history of fighting for the Federation be totally impossible in Caldari space.

So basically, were talking here that you can set a standing against a sell/buy order? And anyone below that standing will not be able to purchase your goods? This sounds like a feasable and somewhat fun idea to me, im going to have a word with the guys about it

Not FW related (looking forward to FW though), but being able to set different prices on a buy/sell order for corp and alliance-mates would be pure love for 0.0 (and many highsec) dwellers. This could dovetail in nicely with the faction-limited orders mechanism.

-----
"I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Artmedis Valben

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:26:00 +0000

FW should be on several levels.

The main Battlegrounds should be border regions of Amarr/Minmatar in 0.1-0.4 AND Gallente/Caldari 0.1-0.4. Sec status of these systems should become fluid and they should even be allowed to change hands, i.e., the factions may win territory from each other.

At the beginning It should only be the military corps of each faction that are involved with the Global mega-corps staying Neutral.

Individual Players of Neutral corporations (Player or NPC starter corps) can declare individually, and their choice should not be limited to fighting for their native faction.

Player Corporations that declare for a faction do so on behalf of all their members who all become flagged as FW figthers.

Being flagged as FW fighter for a faction. Should give you great benefits in the form of faction rewards, medals, ranks, standing etc but only for your faction and to a limited extent to factions friendly to your faction.

However should also make you a criminal in enemy territory and make you KOS to any FW player of the enemy faction. If attacked in friendly high sec you will be aided by your faction.

Corporations that immerse themselves in FW should be able to set up Outposts in their factions low-sec borderzone with the enemy faction, and these outposts should act as sec status raisers, making it harder for the opposing faction to win that system.

The object of FW should be for the factions to try to win territory from each other. And player participation in FW warfare should be what tips the scales. Caldari could slowly one system at a time win over some systems in Sinq Laison and Verge Vendor for example OR Gallente could win over a few systems in The Citadel.

But at the beginning the possibility of systems changing hands should be restricted to the Borderzone "Battlegrounds".

___________________________________________
Selling PERFECT PRINTS of almost all seeded BPOs.
Lobster of Babel currently holds 671 of the 728 Tech 1 BPOs seeded. 7 ships and Capital are missing.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi

#2 Faction-influence on the market. I think it's already a bit annoying that it's hard to see who's selling and buying, that you can't avoid selling your goodies to your enemies or vice-versa. I hope CCP will implement something for this in Factional Warfare. An extra button that you don't want to sell towards people that have negative standings towards your faction/corporation or someone that is at war. Let stuff you can't buy because the sellers don't want you to appear in orange-red or something. Perhaps even let the station-owner (which could be a npc faction, but perhaps a 0.0 alliance too) enforce it, so there isn't stuff that can be sold to foes of the station-owner. Let trading for someone that has a history of fighting for the Federation be totally impossible in Caldari space.

So basically, were talking here that you can set a standing against a sell/buy order? And anyone below that standing will not be able to purchase your goods? This sounds like a feasable and somewhat fun idea to me, im going to have a word with the guys about it

Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi

#4 Having npc navies patrolling systems and jumping through stargates. I think Eve currently sometimes already feels a bit empty and "dead", especially for a newcomer. You've rats in belts/gates, there is often some patrolling at stargates and there is ofcourse some trader npc's flying from station to station inside a system. But for as far as I know npc's actually don't use stargates.

I like the idea for the sheer immersiveness of it all to be quite honest. Patrols and beefing up convoys and making convoys more integral to factional warfare is something that we should do. Your right tho, currently NPC's are restricted to in system, however, nothing is impossible as they say.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet
One note -- Ginger, you say in your blog that it will allow participation on a corporate or individual level, but what about on an alliance level? This would seem kind of imperative for entities like the CVA, Electus Matari, the Acheron Federation, and the Apex Conglomerate. I can certainly see how this could have been an oversight, but it's something that definitely needs to get addressed.

In the current design their is no mechanic for whole alliances joining factional warfare. However due to the additional time we have on this were going to be looking at ways to incorporate it effectively.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Sophia Eve
Factional Warfare is definitely sounding nice, but I'm worried about what kind of standings prerequisites are going to be necessary, especially for veteran players who already have factional standings pretty well stuck the way they are. What about players who, by way of where their corporation operates, ended up raising their standings with the enemies of their native race. Are they forced to fight for their "enemies"?

I havent got any problems with not being able to fight for people that you have bad standings towards, simply because to get those bad standings you have had to blow ten tons of crap out of their ships, those poor crews, in space assets etc. So this is fine.

The only hole I see is there is no way to regain standings past a certain point but this needs looking at in a wider context.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by LeGlt

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:30:00 +0000

Caldari sentry guns shouldshoot Gallente pilots on sight and vice versa.

Bang goes half the population of Jita (the lag along with it ) and it would add to the realism of the story regarding warring factions etc.
__________________________
Nice forum - I'll take it!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gerard Deneth

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:20:00 +0000

I really liked the earlier concepts mentioned about planets; In addition to the earlier post IE Orbital bases around planets, like commercial space stations and transfer points (basically some small outposts like we see in missions), we get some small POS-style stations that are providing some measured benefit (FW LP-stores, NPC-run automated repair arrays (come get your armor and hull repped for LP instead of ISK), and as a local node for summonable NPC wingmen). These bases CAN be taken out by a dedicated team, and killing them is more along the lines of blowing up a tough base in a L4 mission rather than an -actual- player POS.

A better idea for handling FW missions would be to use a mission "pool" where there is a continual selection of various level missions of various types, IE hauling, combat, trade, etc etc. Each of them would have some requirements (one battleship, five pilots max) as well as primary and secondary goals (where you get either extra LP or ISK for doing the secondary goals). Each time a mission gets completed or quit (not just refused before accepting) a new mission is generated into the slot. Probably limit the pool to being constellation-linked (IE each constellation has their own pool of missions).

Mission specific structures and ships would only be spawned when the mission was accepted. L4 and L5 missions would involve attacks on bases orbiting planets (but not all missions would involve attacking those bases).

Mission Ideas:

As well, there could be a FW specific "targets list" generated by the faction's high command, targeting some of those civilian trade bases that now exist in planetary orbit.

Hmm, that offers a new option for some players to contribute to FW... replacing the destroyed outposts and their gear (as well as repairing them. Another use for remote reppers... perhaps offer bonuses for repairing any damage done to bases? Make the penalties nastier than bonuses to prevent players from damaging them just to get rewards for fixing them...)

Another mission would be the "convoy" type, which mingles the Courier mission and an attack mission. This is somewhat similar to that cargo hauling one where you get one case of Quafe from a base and get ambushed, but you need a hauler to move the goods (easily 7000m3 in goods). Somewhere along the route you get ambushed/attacked by a cluster of enemy ships seeking to blow up the target ship (include scammers/webbers). Allows participation of haulers, and we might actually see blockade runners being used!

Bonuses to FW players:
One would be the ability to buy ammunition for LP only. LP cost would be a bit more than currently, but would offer players both a feel of 'being connected' with the faction, as well as preventing flooding the market with the equipment (since faction ammo is, by definition, consumed instead of merely installed). Perhaps institute a hard limit on ammo claimed per day.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:12:00 +0000

Faction warfares and effects on infiltrated stations coud be:
(if this will ever come)

setting:-Docking fee (if the corp( as corp goal for faction missions , and player
individual) which had infiltrate a station has a negative standing an extra
docking fee
-increase of isks each hrs for research/ manufacure
-reserved research/manufacture slots (means some other gets bounced off)( or u
get access to a highe research slot which give an extrabonus as long u has
the station infiltrated.
- setting a tax for each trade on station
( this coud solve the problem with high frequented systems like jita.. if it
get infiltratde by a corp u dont like, u dont do trades on it. Other ppls
woud think about docking .. cos who want make presents like this to your
enemie?)
- refine and reprocess stuff
gives a % bonus to the corp which had infiltrated
the station, independed from skill s of the player which refine/reprocess
stuff.
-medical service.
U have the right to sell jump clones independed from your
corp standing.
- bounties and missions.
U coud get a messsage , when high bountie players are around and has docked
automaticly.
u get an percentage bonus from agent , if a player make a mission for him.
( means the player gets no more then before cos he payed a tax to the
station.

some ideas on effect it could have.

breg mac

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cpt Branko

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:16:00 +0000

As for missions:

I see missions done in the following fashion:

1) Let all ships killed in fights between players who participate in faction warfare and are of opposing factions drop a 'tag' of some sort, depending on ship class.

2) Let most missions require a certain amount of tags of X type in X time.

3) Occasionally, missions should send players from opposing factions in a certain solar system to defend / attack a certain structure / complex.
I'd only limit complex entry by ship class (so if you did sign up for a L1 mission, the biggest you can take is a frigate or possibly a destroyer), but not actually deadspace (so MWD can be used).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cpt Branko

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:08:00 +0000

Originally by: The Cosmopolite

What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.

This is true.

Think about what pirates (like me) have to do now: use alts to get goods in low-sec and sell goods in high-sec. Which is essentially meta-gaming. Completely necessary under the current game mechanics, I'm afraid (actually, you need *two* alts if you're operating on the same account and don't want to train a lot of skills).

Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn

Pure pk's with SS -10 can't go to the Empire, I don't see the problem here. They also can't dock.

Er, they can do both. It's just that the faction navy will shoot them if they do (but you're fine in a shuttle). Not being able to dock anywhere would essentially mean deleting my character if you think about it. At any rate, restricting docking/services/market is a bad idea and forces people to do meta-gaming, which is not fun and not good for gameplay.

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 14/09/2007 21:01:03
O.K. This is pretty much what i envision.

Factions delcare war officially. Setting up clear allies, neutralities, and enemies in other NPC factions.
Players, Corporations, and Alliances may declare allegiance to a faction. Synchronizing those allies, neutralities, and enemies for their self, corp, alliance.
"Declared Factions" give loyalty points to players which they can claim for rewards based on player vs player actions
Loyalty points are rewarded to the player, corporation, and alliance for attacking a hostile players ship equipment or assets, or hostile NPC. I.E. if Johnny Serpentis Kills Klaakitoa Jim then Johnny Serpentis gains x loyalty points to serpentis, Johnny's Corp recieves a portion of those points if they are declared, and Johnnys Alliance recieves a portion of those points if they are declared.
Loyalty points are rewarded to the player, corporation, and alliance for destroying a hostile players ship equipment or assets, or hostile NPC. I.E. if Johnny Serpentis Kills Klaakitoa Jim then Johnny Serpentis gains x loyalty points to serpentis, Johnny's Corp recieves a portion of those points if they are declared, and Johnnys Alliance recieves a portion of those points if they are declared.

I would find that to be a very good basic outline, with implementing standing (LP) loss only if you gank people who are aligned to your faction. Neutrals have no impact, and people aligned to the opposing faction give you LP.

Originally by: Alora Venoda
i can see this system working as follows:

[list]
since it will involve PvP and empire space, anyone participating should have some kind of flag that will act similar to the current wardec mechanics. basically, it means you are "enlisted" by that particular faction, and shooting a faction warfare opponent will not invoke CONCORD or change your sec status. and the flag should be a global thing, not related to specific objectives and you could be vulnerable from enemy players at any time. and it will also have a 24 hour transition period like with normal wardecs.
...

Yes, this is how I see it as well - aligning to a faction puts you at a pernament wardec with the players aligned to the other factions. The agression/aiding rules for neutrals are also fine. I do think the rewards should be mainly LP in nature (but good amounts, to entice people to participate, and PvP loot). In fact, I agree with everything except the market thing, for reasons I listed previously.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:53:00 +0000

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 17/09/2007 09:55:09
Few concepts on encouraging small gangs;
transport
When you declare to join an FW encounter, you do not know where exactly will it happen (military secret).
Instead, you declare team and ships for encounter and wait. When all is arranged, ships are jumped in a mothership and you can clonejump there 24 hour timer ignored for that purpose perhaps, or do not let people with timer declare) and pick your ships.
If you have 50 friends somewhere, reday to kick, they have to fly theree to join you. The battle may be over till then. If they were near or moved fast enough - yay for you!

Reimbusement
To some degree ships and equipment lost in FW might be reimbused instead of getting insurance payout. You declare a ship and setup, and when its lost, you just get a new one, with same fitting - to a reasonable level. Small gang is motivated simply by reimbusing only declared small gang, with ships and fittings of quality dependent on pilots FW rank and position. So if you are a private, just starting with FW, Amarr Empire may get You a new executor with meta level 2 fittings (worst named), not your Zealot with faction stuff, and definately not your Blasterthron. If You are a high ranked general in Amarr Navy, You can request reimbusement of Your Absolution with T2 and Amarr Navy fittings (but still not a Blasterthron). So, if You get 20 friends to join Your gang, they dont get reimbusement and risk much more finantial damage then the declared group (that risks only loss in FW rankes and points for loosing).
At the same time, it motivates using racial equipment.
Also, it shall draw resources from real people, industrial FW members (who are rewarded with FW points and ranks and stuff for that), so You will not get an Absolution unless someone has built it for the Amarr Navy ealier.
Also, it works very well for keeping FW people joyfully engaging in FW warfare without fear of financial loose, espacially when they are newbie and cannot realistically asses risks, and at the same time, FW reward ships are not a free guns to throw in sucide frighter ganking in Jita or in your 0.0 war with BoB. Nothing stops You from getting Your FW reward Navy Apoc for fleets in Pure Blind, You just wont get a new one if its lost outside FW.

Reimbusement is IMHO good design because it motivates but does not create magical barriers.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Seringol

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:03:00 +0000

I know I have said a lot of things so far, and it seems I am in the minority on many.

My final questions; which do not need answers here but I sincerely hope you talk about with each other:
How will you enforce/encourage small gangs?
How will you bring non 0.0 residents to 0.0?
How will you keep them there, when their ships are blown up because small gangs were ignored?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tairon Usaro

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:34:00 +0000

Still i do not see, how you fulfill the objective of PVP being down scaled to small gangs in the area of factional warfares. This might be due to the fact that you did not disclose, how you want to issue PVP missions. Maybe it is like this

Amarrian Navy Officer issues the following mission:
Gather 5 Pilots and come back to me to get your orders

You form a gang of 5 Pilots and report to the Navy Officer that you are ready

Our intelligence has reported that some minmatar forces are gathering in System XY, please stand by for engagement. You will receive a notification, once our recon forces have spotted the enemy.

At the same time a mission is also issued for Minmatars, so you synchronize 5:5 FW-PvPers by this. Once the Minmatar gang is formed the Amarrians get an Evemail from the recon force, while the Minmatars are informed by the their intel that a Amarrian fleet is on its way to their system.

OK thats a possible scenario for PVP Missions, BUT what will happen ? Since it is low sec, both sides will probably enforce their teams by non-FW PvPers in order to increase their chance to win this. For the sake of sec standing loss, everybody could engage the FW missioners. All in all it would end up in the same mess as the 0.0 blobbing, we currently have.

So what you really want to have, is separating the FW-PVP from the rest in order to be able to restrict their forces to the mission design. How do we get there ? One answer to my eyes could be dead space pockets. The gates to dead space pockets are an optimal separator for sorting out the people you want to have in the scenario from the others.

So here is a scenario I envision:
Same as above, but the Minmatars get the objective to defend a radio telescope in their system used for transmitting intel to the HQ. Via a gate they warp into the dead space pocket and prepare themselves for the defense. The Amarrians get the bookmark to their NPC recon buddy, which is able to open a intra-system jumpbridge into the dead space pocket for the missioners. Voila, a clear cut 5 vs 5 with no interference from others.

Maybe these small missions can accumulate to larger impacts such as the system sovereignty level, which influences the station behaviour as already metioned by others in this thread.

By the way something like this could also be used for POS warefare (Dead space pockets whith entry restrictions, where you have to knock out speficic parts of the POS defense, instead of 200 vs 200 in front of the POS).

________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dar Qsyde

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:09:00 +0000

I'm anxiously awaiting Faction War and since you are asking for ideas...here's my .02ISK

First, I believe that all rewards from FW "missions" should be in LP only. I would recommend that this be redeemable in a new "tier" of LP Store that carries only factional gear, only available in faction friendly stations. This would see FW players slowly migrate to faction only ships and gear over time, but allow them the flexibilty to pilot whatever ships they wanted. These "Faction LP" could also be used to buy ranks. For example, I could spend my 10,000 FW LPs on a Hookbill or a rank of Ensign.

An increase in Rank should provide access to more lucrative "missions", more often.

Security Status and Standings should be cumulative. For example, My SecStat is 2.0 and my standing with the Caldari State is 1.5 so my SecStatus in Caldari Space should be 3.5, but since my standing with the Gallente Federation is -2.5 I would be at -0.5 in Gallente Space. This means that if I'm a zealous Caldari pilot my standing with the Gallente Federation should drop fairly rapidly, effectively keeping me from entering Gallente space. This could also be used to restrict pilots from entering Stations controlled by hostile alliances. This should only be enabled for those who are participating in FW.

In keeping with this, should I be attacked by a hostile FW participant in Caldari space, a Caldari Navy NPC spawn of appropriate size to our relative Security Status difference should appear to aid me. Likewise if I attack a Gallente FW participant in Gallente space a Gallente Federation NPC spawn should appear to help thwart me.

In addition, FW LP should be rewarded for attacking random hostile NPC spawns and people. For people it should be rated based on there Security Status and/or Standing. Again, I stress this should only be enabled for those who have "signed up" for Faction War.

There should also be a "Donate to the War Effort" option, which would allow industrialists and miners to earned FW LP by giving material to the faction. A higher reward should be given for donations that are more racially appropriate. For example, an Amarr Industrialist should get more FW LP for donating Frequency Crystals than they would for donating Hybrid ammo, and should not get much reward for donating Projectile ammo. This would be essentially be a second Market with NPC-only Buy orders that are paid in FW LP. To provide a little excitement, restrict the order range to station, and this forces people to haul goods to that lonely, isolated station. Then let the hostiles know .

That's all I've got for now. Should anything else come to me I'll let you know.
"You don't know the power..."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kira Felicitas

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 05:45:00 +0000

Might be a little too fictional but when I started playing Eve I saw a fight between two corps in HighSec. Around 20 ships on each side fighting each other. That was one of my first impressions I got from Eve and it was amazing to see it and I wanted to participate on things like that. But when I started running missions it was more like "It's me - alone - against a bunch of rats". Thinking of factional warfare I also think of missions that are more like a war between corps or alliances - but then between npc factions instead of player corps. You warp in and have two parties: the friendlies that are in need of your help and the enemies. There could also be an "npc fleet commander" giving you orders, doing gang warps and things like other fleet commanders do in pvp. Later on, the player himself could have the opportunity to lead the gang having several faction ships in a gang under his command. All of this in missions. Those missions could be very interesting I think. Ok, this is very visionary, but I think it's at least an idea ;)
(And sorry for my bad English - I hope you understood what I said) ;)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by GoGo Yubari

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:41:00 +0000

Just a few thoughts:

Systems that actually change hands!!

Reward bringing down enemy allied ships with loyalty points, not straight isk. It's not a bounty, it's recognition.

Though it is proposed as a sandbox, it would be interesting to see some kind of high level strategic coordination by the factions. Ie. "take Old Man Star"-tyle objectives, perhaps with higher loyalty point rewards for actions in line with the strategy, while still leaving the tactical decisions on how to accomplish that entirely in the players hands. This would bring in people roughly to the same hot zones to fight - hence, easy to get a fight.

While roaming and general warfare akin to current corp wars is okay to some extent, faction warfare needs to be distinct. Thus, and also still in the interests of bringing people to the same locales for the fights, make fights centered around certain areas and objectives (such as structures to be destroyed, raided or defended).

Denying docking rights flat-out, while interesting, is a huge change. However, this could easily be implemented for low-sec only! So, in low-sec/null-sec you would not be able to hide in stations belonging to opposing factions. This would really drive home the point of the harsh realities of the warzone, and the outposts as sort of besieged, paranoid and wary bastions of empire influence. Likewise, pirate stations should not welcome players not aligned to them - 0.0 does not need such safe havens which come at no cost.

You are saying that only the four empires will be at start. I hope to see the smaller empire (Khanid, Ammatar, Syndicate, etc) and of course the pirate entities included! The pirate missions should be centered around raiding/pillaging operations, rather than control of territory. Eve is not just about the 4 empires, there is so much flavor in the groups around them that it would be a travesty to ignore them.

I understand that is a possible plan in some later stages, but allowing players to take empire territory - if only in low-sec/null-sec - is a delicious prospect. Likewise, in contrast to this, allow players to conquer null-sec for their empires.

Love by nature. Live by luck. Kill by profession.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Goumindong

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:22:00 +0000

from the other thread...

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

There's been a lot of discussion on this, and the exact point you bring up has been repeated multiple times Smile The basic problem of blobbing is a difficult one to approach - but we're looking at ways of countering it by setting the system up so that, past a certain point, "more firepower =/= completing the objective faster". If your 20-man blob takes as long to do something as a five-man raiding gang, blobbing stops being quite so profitable - you'd work faster splitting up, and if you insist on blobbing, your enemy can complete objectives three times faster than you using the same resources.

Stop thinking about objectives. Do not add anything to the game. Just integrate the thigns that are already in the game into factional warfare.

If i was a mission runner, i would want mission running to tie into factional warfare. If i was a miner, i would want mining to tie into factional warfare. If i was a ratter, i would want ratting to tie into factional warfare. If i was a pirate, i would want pirating to tie into factional warfare.

Simply give out LP rewards for these actions in each system. Sum the LP generated in each system and then give the system to the power with the total LP generated in that area over an arbitrary period of time. Add in some non-cosmetic changes to the system, like the type of rats that spawn in different areas[and make low-sec rats bigger in general], turn off opposing-factions mission agents, turn off opposing factions NPC buy or sell orders etc.

So, lets run this out pretty simply without going into specifics.

1. Ratting opposing NPCS gives LP
2. Running friendly missions gives LP.
3. Running friendly missions in enemy space gives more LP[I.E. mission accepted on a border region, moving into hostile space for the mission objective]
4. Put open contracts based on faction affiliation for ores, ships, etc. Make the completion of these give loyalty points. Put a cap on purchases each day
5. Put up open contracts based on faction affiliation to give out ores, ships, etc. Make the completion of these cost loyalty points. Put a cap on sales each day
6. Reduce loyalty points on any hostile action taken against a friendly faction

Now mining has an effect. It can be sold to the faction and increases their hold on an area.
Mission running has the same effect.
Now pirates have reason to go after miners and mission runners over what they normally do. It generates LP for them and stops LP from the other side.
Now anti-pirates have a reason to defend miners and mission runners.
Traders can move items to the front for LP.
Producers can produce items for the war for LP.
Fighters can buy faction ships, ammo, and equipment for LP[P.S. moar faction ships are always apreciated]

It doesnt change the basic dynamics of the game it just integrates it into factional wafare, gives them additional incentives to take the actions in low-sec, and close to areas where hostile forces are likly to be located.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erim Solfara

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:05:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?

Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

What about it stays as any player with a positive standing to the corp that owns the station can dock, but if a station is in the wrong sovereignty, then players can attack the station, perhaps with navy support, and, once destroyed, a new station of the correct faction would slowly be built.

The details of overcoming the station would have to be worked out, and how much support would be available, but I think it'd be nice to see stations being conquered and/or destroyed, even if it'd take a very long time and alot of commitment.

A new tool in the fight for balance?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tsanse Kinske

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:50:00 +0000

Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 16/09/2007 22:51:35
First off, I'm glad the ball is rolling. This is something I've been looking forward to since I started. :)

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

On changing technical fundamentals: we don't want to use a lot of programmer time changing fundamental systems to achieve relatively small effects. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff works on assumptions made half a decade ago. Destroying stations or having them switch owners on a regular basis, for example, is something we want to avoid if possible, as it would likely soak up a lot of programming time we could use for other things.

I have a somewhat fleshed out framework of a FW system I've been mulling over for a long time. But there's a "technical fundamental" issue that, if not easily solvable, takes away much of the appeal of it away for me...and probably any FW system, really:

- Is it feasible to have another level or two of "blinky" to differentiate faction foes from other valid aggression targets, and faction allies from everybody else?

It's quite an important feature to have, in my opinion, even if my particular ideas aren't so good otherwise. With such a capability, FW can be extremely freeform...like an additional, optional layer of gameplay on top of EVE as it stands now. Without it, it seems to me that it's going to have to be much more tightly structured, and thus less interesting to me anyway.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Schani Kratnorr

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:13:00 +0000

I first read the blog, hoping for a timeline, but NOOOOO. Instead I get some utter dribble about stuff...

With regards to feedback from the players, I suggest you do a forum search and gather the thousands of threads already made on the subject. Some of them might contain what you're looking for... Asking us again is wastefull and borders on simple stalling tactics.

If you're not gonna deliver, just say so. Don't waste any more of our time building up hype.

(this post was made while PO'd due to your billing system not working... WHAT my RL ISK not good enoughu for you?)

*trods off to take his spot in the two-week long petition que*

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Boma Airaken

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:46:00 +0000

Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The approach in the blog looks good so far as it goes. I also agree with much that Nuyan said but with one caveat on the issue of docking.

Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.

On the controversial subject of docking rights. I'm not surprised this has reared its head but I'm not going to outright oppose it.

What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.

My view is that if you want to make it difficult to impossible for an enemy of a faction to operate in a faction's region in one way then you have to offer them ways to operate that are in keeping with their standings to that faction. In other words, if you want to restrict them from doing certain things in the territory of an enemy faction then make it possible for them to do things that loyalists of that faction cannot do.

Restrict their ability to use a market in an empire? Then give them a black market. A real functioning black market which loyalists cannot access.

Restrict their ability to dock in law-abiding stations in an empire? Then give them access to criminal and rebel stations in that empire. Restrict access to loyalists in some manner. Use deadspace and/or have stations shift but alway locatable by those friendly to them.

Just two ideas and by no means perfect or doable on the timescales envisioned. But simply restricting people without in some other way enabling them will not make factional warfare fun for that many people.

Maybe those people who want to have docking rights restricted also want a decent quid pro quo for that in gameplay terms. Really, any kind of restriction has to be balanced by some kind of countering ability.

Cosmo

This is good stuff. PLEASE take it into consideration CCP.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Elipsis

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:24:00 +0000

To me the most important thing is that our actions actually shape what happens in the game world in a real and tangible way.

I'd like to see the focus be border systems. Maybe some sovereignty changes hands in a few systems based on which faction is best represented, maybe some of those Amarr stations in Minmatar space get taken over by the Minmatar. The map should be reshaped following these battles. Borders should be changed and objectives can then be analyzed and evaluated for the next leg of the war. This would give a wonderful strong feeling that our actions in game truly were changing the game world.
-...

CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ralitge boyter

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:19:00 +0000

Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 16/09/2007 21:22:22
First of all as stated before: Ranks are cool, so please put them in.

Doing ranks will mean that you will more likely be able to switch sides. Doing so as an general will be more valuable for the enemy then when you are low ranking cannon fodder. On top of that doing so will mean that your former master hates you even more then your new friends did before. And that your new friends like you though they will not make you a general right from the start they will put you back a few ranks so you can prove your self. This makes for a simple mechanic and for a deminishing return when switching sides a lot.

Then when it comes to the docking rights, of course the stations should be sorted out so we do not have caldari stations in Galente space, or Minmatar in Ammar space. Maybe the war can make it imposible for the current owners to sustain their supply lines and thus they might redraw from the station, after which it can be taken over by the oposing faction. This can be done in the game by making new stations using the same graphics but new names, so all that needs to be done is change the graphic id of the station (it will be a bit harder in real eve, but far easier then the docking rights story most likely)

As for the danger in the other systems, I think that people that rise beond a cerrtain rank in one army sould of course be mistrusted by their enemy, and the raising of prices with the eventual disabeling of services should certainly be done for the enemy controled parts of space. But only at a certain rank.

The initial focus of factional warfare should be more on the industrial side of things the supply of material of ships, guns and so on as is normal with a war the build up of arms.
Then when the supply has been established the killers can start moving in more and more, taking out the supply lines, these will then become more protected making for better fights and bigger ships to be used. But as losses rise the demand for supplies becomes bigger and so on.

The faction wingman sounds like fun but also risky, as this might mean that PvP is only posible if you have trained your wingman control (or what ever the skill name might be) to level 5. As when you encounter an opponent with say 5 extra ships on him or a group of opponents with 25 extra ships the DPS from the extra ships is so huge that you do not stand a chance to eve scratch your opponent.
Quite posibly based on rank a type of mission can be chosen and based on that a number of wingman will be assigned, this wil then also mean that you will encounter an roughly equaly skilled opponent making for more intresting fights.
I can not imagine a general even wanting to wake up for a mision in which his sole task is the elimination of a soldier protecting a shipment of furtilizer.

A LP store integration sounds like a good idea but I do think there should be one more variable introduced, and that is rank. As you go up in rank you will get more lucerative deals and maybe even some unique items that you cannot get without that rank (or higher) This will not only lead to a reason to stick with a faction but also this will give current mission runners more of an incentive to move to the PvP type factional warfare asignments.

All in all it needs to be fun, the changing of security status might be good in the future but for now I think the initial set of things needs to be delivered as this has been talked about for years now but so far we still have to see the first Minmatar security gun shoot an Ammar ship just because it was trying to pass.

-------------------------------------------
Should you disagree with me, well I guess that is because I disagree with you. If you have a problem with that please feel free not to tell me.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:21:00 +0000

Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 16/09/2007 20:21:44
I thought it would be nice to have FW rewards working differently, depending on race. Currently, agent missions use exact same mechanics in all factions, like if all factions had same social organization. Changing that for FW would make people feel their factions more, see that they are built on different fundamental values.

Caldari
Precision;
You are rewarded for executing all tactical objectives in encounter.
Efficiency;
You are rewarded for destroying enemies per ISK damage.
Teamwork;
Whole team in encounter gets same share of rewards for the whole action.
Perfectionism;
Failure is punished more then with other races.

Gallente
Individualism;
Every pilot in a team gets his own rewards for his own deeds, kills, objectives.
Adaptation;
You are more rewarded for secondary objectives appearing during encounter.
Deadliness;
You are rewarded for (pvp) damage done.
Freedom;
Punishment in whatever points for failure and loss is lesser then with other races, however any faction reimbusement and support is also smaller.
Tolerance;
Other races and people with low standings can be accepted and advance easier ten with oter races.

Minmatar
Bravery;
You are rewarded enemy numbers and ship sized if they have advantage (even if You loose miserably)
Brutality;
You are rewarded for pvp final blows.
Brotherhood;
You are punished for team mate ship loses (but not your own).

Amarr
Superiority
You are not rewarded for killing enemies. They are inferior, weak creatures, we expected them to die anyway, no?
Faith
You are rewarded for declaring to join encounters without knowing exact location, objectives, whatever
Pride
You are rewarded for staying on battlefield, even if you loose, even if you die. You are punished for fleeing, no matter the odds.
Corruption
FW NPCs ask You for private favors time to time. They are not connected with team objectives, and are given individually. They may even be against team objectives and are designed to be troublesome. Like "One of our (NPC) ships in convoy holds some frentix. I want it. Let those minmatars accidentialy destroy or kill it yourself so no one sees and bring me the drug". Or "minmatar (NPC) pilot Your team is about to eliminate, just so happens to be my favorite personal slave who fled. Since its my slave, I want to punish her personaly. Bring her to me even if this means failing a secondary objective". For those personal favors, important NPCs can give very very high individual rewards.
Bureaucracy
After every FW encounter someone in team has to do a small, stupid courier mission with reports :)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Grawshellar

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:50:00 +0000

Edited by: Grawshellar on 16/09/2007 19:53:31
Edited by: Grawshellar on 16/09/2007 19:52:22

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

On industrial FW: this is something we very much want, but the trick will be designing a system where it has an impact, but not an overwhelming one. Nobody wants to haul stuff all over lowsec and generate no discernible effect, but equally nobody wants to be hugely penalised because some other guy screwed up his hauling run or what have you. This will need thought and balance.

My apologies if I missed a similar suggestion.

How about allowing a certian base itemtype to be "sold" to the faction(at a reduced price/reward) to allow the purchase of the faction equivalent?

EXAMPLE
You can spend 100,000 "pvp points/whatever" to get the new coolest amarr factional pwnage Augoror. However the amarr empire doesn't have an endless supply of them, so its up to the players to donate a handy supply of Augorors, slaves, and datacores. They do get compensated for donating these items of course, but the supply of faction item is directly dependent on industrialist supporting the faction as well. If there are no industrialist donating items, there are no modules/ships to receive!

* I suggested datacorse, slaves, and ships to get researchers, mission runners, industrialist in on the action. But it could easily be anything.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by FireFoxx80

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:06:00 +0000

I won't comment on FW as a whole yet, I think Ginger and GreyScale have given a lof of responses in this thread, I'll wait until they're dev-blogged.

World Shaping
Having systems' security status changing, depending on how hostile a system has been recently; would be quite good. Although 0.1-0.4 means little to most people, it would be an indicator of how much of a warzone a particular system is.
Combine this with more rats, reduced station services (still dockable, but the ravages of war affecting station services), and so on.

Make it stop!
Pilots should be able to switch sides, given enough time and mission grinding. Eve is an excellent game because you can go from +10 to -10 and back again; you can get a +7.5 standing to Caldari, then throw it all away and fly Gallente. Anything is possible, no doors should be closed.

What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Greyscale

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 16/09/2007 18:03:53
Right.

On calling in support from factional navies: ideas like this are why we have threads like this No, we haven't talked about it yet, but I think now we will

On industrial FW: this is something we very much want, but the trick will be designing a system where it has an impact, but not an overwhelming one. Nobody wants to haul stuff all over lowsec and generate no discernible effect, but equally nobody wants to be hugely penalised because some other guy screwed up his hauling run or what have you. This will need thought and balance.

On forcing people to fly the "right" ships: it's an appealing idea, but I think it ends up being counterproductively restrictive. As has been pointed out though, don't expect to get equipment for Minmatar ships from the Amarr! The biggest problem with this sort of approach though is just that balance work is done on the basis that gangs contain a mix of races, and rebalancing everything to accommodate single-race gangs would both be a massive workload and create undesirable knock-on effects for the game as a whole.

On how difficult it should be to join/leave/change sides: it's interesting to see that both ends of the spectrum are very much in evidence here. In general, we're currently looking at lowish barriers for entry and a flexible but not lax 'toggle' (as in, you won't be signing yourself and your children away forever by any stretch of the imagination, but equally you won't just be in for a few hours and out again). The issue of changing sides, recovering deep negative standing etc is a more difficult one (and one that affects EVE as a whole, not just the FW area) and one we're still discussing. We're still big on actions having consequences, so don't expect it to ever become easy, but it may get a little easier.

On small gangs: as mentioned in the other thread, we're experimenting with the possibility of rate of rewards not scaling with player count - bringing more people does not mean you'll "win" faster.

On docking: the feedback is good The idea of disabling services and/or making them cost more is an interesting one. We're going to need to discuss this more though I think. Fun fact: there are around 1500 stations where the faction of the corp owning them and the faction owning the space are not the same.

On fighting for nobody: this will very probably be possible - as I mentioned in the other thread it makes little sense to design a mechanic encouraging PvP and then arbitrarily telling groups of PvPers they can't get involved.

On declaring war on FW organisations: very probably very easy to do if you so wish.

On entire alliances signing up: this is a very sticky point and one we're still working at. In theory yes, we'd love for alliances to be able to sign up. In practice, EVE has two containers - the corp, which holds players, and the alliance, which holds corps. We don't have a container for alliances as of yet, which makes alliance-level signups difficult to say the least.

On ranks: ranks are cool

On rewards: the intention is that it will be self-sustaining - if you want to PvP in FW, you can just PvP, without having to run missions to make money on the side (provided you're prepared to be reasonable frugal in your setups). However, we're not looking to give people a way to sustain non-FW PvP without any work, as we don't want to mess with the balance there. Hitting the right point here may require fine-tuning. Also, tags and corpses people, tags and corpses. We have evil plans.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Greyscale

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:02:00 +0000

Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 16/09/2007 18:04:25
On world-shaping: we're still evaluating what's feasible, but we want warzones, and we want them to be at least reasonably dangerous

On backing up assertions with arguments: this makes it much easier to judge whether you're onto something important, or just letting off steam Number one design question is "yes, but WHY?"

On changing technical fundamentals: we don't want to use a lot of programmer time changing fundamental systems to achieve relatively small effects. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff works on assumptions made half a decade ago. Destroying stations or having them switch owners on a regular basis, for example, is something we want to avoid if possible, as it would likely soak up a lot of programming time we could use for other things.

On niche playstyles: where we can accommodate niche playstyles with relative ease, we will likely do so if we can identify them (apologies again to Es and Whizz). Where we have to bend over backwards and dedicate significant development time to small groups of players, it's less likely we will do so - see previous comment about allocation of developer time.

On Ginger replying before me: I was replaying BG&E yesterday.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sir Hades

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:50:00 +0000

For any of this to work, faction warfare needs to be in both hi sec and low sec.

-Points

Progress of the faction war should be measured in a system of points. For each enemy asset destroyed, your faction shall receive a set amount of points.

-Planets

Right now, planets serve little purpose. Faction warfare should give the planets a role. There should be several structures and ships in orbit around the planets. These structures are one of the ways to gain points. Once a structure is destroyed, it is gone forever.

- Convoys: These are the same convoys that we see in space now. They go from the supply depots to the stations. Easily ganked by a gang of frigates. Worth a few points. Do respawn.
- Supply depots: These store goods of some sort before they are shipped to the stations. They can be destroyed by a roving gang of frigates. Worth several points. Many of these around a planet.
- Space elevator: This allows the transfer of goods between the surface of the planet and space. Can be destroyed by a gang of cruisers. Worth a fair amount of points. Several of these around a planet.
- Planet command center: This structure houses the command staff that oversees the transfer of goods between surface and supply depots and between the supply depots and stations. Requires a gang of battleships to destroy. Worth a lot of points. Only one per planet.
- System command center: This structure oversees the supply lines of the entire system. Requires battleships and support craft to take down. Worth tons of points. Only one per system. Usually the target of large missions.

-Ships

Protecting the planet structures will be a mix of sentry guns, navy NPCs, and players. The relation between a systems security status and mix of ships is related. As the security status goes up, there are more and larger NPC ships with battleships guarding in 1.0 systems. As the security status lowers, there are less and smaller NPC ships and the reliance will fall on players. Player ships also give points. The size of the ship and the amount of points are related.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sir Hades

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:50:00 +0000

-Missions

Faction stations will all have a faction warfare agent. Each agent is the same. There will also be a faction chat channel that is only used to relay orders to the fighters of the faction. It can not be closed and no one can talk in it.

There are two main types of missions.

Small missions are free from and player driven. The agent tells you to destroy assets in a particular constellation. This is a wide area of space to hit so that blobbing is not an option. The enemy faction does not know that the mission in under way. It is up to the players to organize a defense. Each mission lasts a week. Assets destroyed in a mission get double the points. However, it is not always the best idea to only attack the target area. It is a good idea to attack other areas to keep the enemy split up and to gain more points.

Large missions are scripted and offer less player flexibility. The head commander of the navy pops into the faction channel and tells that there is a very important mission coming up. The players go to an agent and get the details. The agent will tell the target system and at what time the NPC navy is coming in. Players have the choice of when to start their attack, but the navy will come in at the time listed. The mission will be given out the day before. Two hours before the mission is set to go off, the enemy faction commander will come into their chat channel and warn them of the incoming attack. The enemy commander will list them target system and time of the attack. Players must then scramble a defense force. The attacking force will attack until the target is destroyed, or until a set number of points in losses have occurred and the other to retreat is given. Large missions are only given out once a set number of points have been reached. Large missions also yield double points for destroyed assets. Large missions also yield LP for the navy to all players of that faction if successful.

Since large missions have a point requirement, it will inspire people to go out and destroy target in player lead operations, to do small missions, and to guard systems to prevent the enemy from gaining the ability to have larger missions.

There is a third type of missions, but it will not be as common as the other two. This is a border mission. It is given out at the beginning of the week and lasts a week. The commander of the navy will get into the channel and tell of a mission of the utmost importance. Players go to an agent and receive the target system and the orders to destroy all assets in the system. Once this has been completed, a navy freighter will warp into system with a support fleet and set up a system command center. The players have to defend the freighter and structure. If the players are successful, the system is now under the control of the attacking faction. If the players are not successful, then the defenders will still retain control of the system. Border missions only take place in the border zones of the empires and only after a very large amount of points have been gained.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tharrn

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:48:00 +0000

I also wondered how to include industrial players or players not interested in combat-PvP:

Add low-sec border zones between all Empires. There shouldn't be high-sec routes between the different Empires at all. As the Navy presence would be less strong in low-sec this would probably also be where most factional warfare would take place. An additional bonus would be that we could get rid of Jita that way :P Regional markets ftw!

Now add some special low-slot modules that can only be mounted on industrial ships and are used to carry certain goods needed by the factions ('High security arms cache' etc). If a ship has these fitted it cannot be transported in a jump-capable ship anymore (no cheating! :P). Each faction makes certain tradegoods (and only one faction makes each) like 'trigger units' or 'high-tech warheads'. Each faction needs all of them to make the special equipment players with high faction standing can buy... you see a pattern emerge? These goods are delivered to certain Navy Factory Stations and only after a certain amount of the special tradegoods is delivered some of the factional goodies become available (depending on what combinations of these goods is available to the factory). The PvP players would thus have a healthy interest to ensure a constant flow of these goods, which all have to go through low-sec somehow...

Too much coding required I guess :P

Amarr Mineral Index

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tharrn

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:47:00 +0000

I'll try to write down some more ideas that emerged over the years of Empire warfaring as brainfarts. As I am lazy it will probably be sketchy, as I just can't bring myself to write five pages :P Some of it may or may not open big cans of worms - I am sure people will poke holes into it all over. I am not sure myself how big the griefing potential would be :P I wrote it up in like 30 minutes, so don't expect miracles.

I also noticed that some of it has alreay been suggested

To start out let me say that I think this should be as sandboxy as possible, not requiring missions. Those might add to it and carry stories, but they shouldn't be the basis of it all.

Down with Concord!
For proper factional warfare I'd do away with CONCORD. Forget the security rating and go by the faction standings. The factional Navies can take over the duty of CONCORD: you **** off Amarr, their Navy hunts you. You have a -10 standing with Amarr? No entry into high-sec Amarrian space. You shoot a non-war target, non-FW participant in high-sec: a Navy response team comes to cream you just like CONCORD does now and your factional standing goes down the drain. It would certainly be tougher as security rating is so easy to raise, but don't people always tell us that actions have consequences? Right!

The joys of being 'in the Navy'
Once you sign your contract to take part in factional warfare you show as a war target for opposing FW players. If you want to keep the system open you could even make it so that you can join certain 'campaigns' directed against one faction only. Or multiple. Or all. All out war baby! Yarr, sod allies we are better than all of them anyways.

If you kill enemies (aka people taking part in factional warfare) on your hometurf your standing with your own faction increases, and the standing with the enemy faction decreases slightly. After all the daft buggers invaded our space.
If you kill enemies on their territory your own faction standing increases more and the standing with the enemy faction decreases more. For the motherland!

As you may have noticed you'll be safer in your own space :P

If your standing with a faction decreases enough you cannot enter their high-sec space anymore without being attacked by the enemy Navy (note: not the Navy response teams taking over Concord duties protecting civilians... I'd differentiate there. A large enough taskforce should be able to fight it's way into enemy territory, fending of the Navy AND enemy FW players). Basically it's like that already, but the poor Navy sods really suck hard right now.
Additionally low-standing means denial of services in enemy stations. Why should they repair an enemy or let him use the clonebay? If the standing gets bad enough they just tell you to shove off when you ask to dock. And guess what: agent runners won't be affected - if your standing with a faction is outright awfull they don't talk to you anyways :P The beauties of getting rid of CONCORD.

If your standing with a faction increases enough you get premium services (discounted repairs and clones anyone?) and can buy special equipment while you stay enrolled as a fighter for your faction. The transition between FW on -> off should take a considerable amount of time and should bring about a penalty when you turn it off - no constant switching when you feel like it. You either commit or you don't. Opportunists can go die :P Obviously you shouldn't be able to join a faction when they hate you at all.

Amarr Mineral Index

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Meldorn Vaash

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:33:00 +0000

Factional Warfare Ideas:

Close the borders to all non-native races with in a factions space.

Deport all non-native races to their faction space. Give the players from other factions that have moved into another factions space time to move there property back to home space unless they have declared allegiance to the faction they have moved to. If a player does not move their property by the time open warfare is declared, it is shipped back to the players starting station.

Concord or native race will assume control of abandoned race specific stations to maintain the trade lanes.

Concord will control border crossing systems and deny access to other faction space. Having said that, PvP raids (solo, small-gang or fleets) and/or faction warfare missions(if thats how the war will be) can be routed thru covert jump gates or jump bridges along the border systems after a player has pledged allegiance to their faction 0.0 sec travel can still be used by anyone at anytime

If travel to another hostile territory is needed within Empire space, Concord can issue (with a price) a neutrality pass for empire travel for business purposes (i.e. trading, mining, mission running, etc.) with the condition that any aggressive act other than self defense or mission running, will void Concords protection and the player will be subject to attack by the territorys faction police/navy, as well as the players themselves. Continuing on that, the next time a player wants to purchase another pass, it will be more expensive due to the prior infraction. These passes could have a time limit on them similar to insurance on a ship with the option to renew at the end of the time.

Faction Allegiance:

Any player can establish their allegiance to any faction but they need to do so in the faction space they wish to join or maybe to a faction agent in a border system station.(Just remember to move your stuff BEFORE you join) Allegiance can have a time limit on it also equal to ship insurance Upon declaring allegiance, the player is given a temporary -5.0 rating? to the faction you are at war with. This status will allow access to Faction Warfare specific jump gates and jump bridges along the border systems.

Theres my .2 ISK love it, hate it whatever

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Aryandi

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:57:00 +0000

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 15/09/2007 20:40:58
There is one extremly cool thing that might get implemented when the war begins;

Lowsec separating empires!
2-5 systems wide area of war frontier.
This would separate markets, industrial and mission economies of NPC empires. Minerals, capital fuels, T2 equipment and components, NPC trade goods, mission stuff, research stuff, cosmos stuff.

Currently, in economy, all empire is really one place. With few exceptions, every highsec system is just X safe, AFK jumps in a freighter from Jita. Suicide gankers do not change that much.
With lowsec isolation lands of safe systems, miners, builders, inventors, and to much bigger degree - traders and pirates - will have much more intresting lives. Much much.

With tricky travel between empires, people will at last start calling this "empires" not "empire", and say "I'm selling my loot in Gallente space" rather then "I'm selling my loot in empire".

YES.

I came into my thread to suggest exactly the same thing, although with a slight twist.

I was going to suggest that there should be one or two high sec routes between Amarr/Caldari and Gallente/Minmatar - but they should be significently longer than the low sec routes.

Between Amarr/Minmatar and Gallente/Caldari though there should be at least two jumps of low security space. This should be organised carefully to ensure that there isn't just one chokepoint for pirates to camp, so people have options. You might for example have the shortest route between Jita and Rens having 5 low sec jumps, or by scouting around have 5 or 6 options for routes that involve just 2 low sec jumps.

To be honest I think Eve is getting too crowded and we need more regions everywhere, high, low, 0.0 - but this would be a start.

This could be done by just adding a few new systems to existing regions, but two new low sec regions separating the empires would be great :)

This could even be explained in RP times by trust failing between the empires so they want to establish some distance to prevent invasions. To do so they destroy the direct connecting stargates and open up a new region.

Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Leandro Salazar

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:57:00 +0000

If I do not participate in factional warfare, but have a horrible standing to some empires due to standard missions, will that make me a valid target for highsec gankers of the factions that hate me?
I certainly hope not...

There is no 'n' in turret
There is no 'r' in faction
There is no 'a' in Scorpion
There is no 'e' in Caldari
There is no makeup in rogue drones

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:02:00 +0000

Originally by: Erotic Irony
Does it require peculiar insights to succeed in it, sure but is it player vs player combat?

pvp is short of "player versus player", not for "player versus player combat". understanding pvp as only combat, is just useful and common simplification (I use it too).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Drachma Golea

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:59:00 +0000

I don't get the statement "Focussed in low-sec space" fully here.

We have 4 factions that will go at war at a certain time, this means to me that empire, and that includes 0.5 to 1.0 sec space also right?

Maybe someone can update me with some intel on this matter?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Liet Traep

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:23:00 +0000

One thing I would love to see. Is if you join up with a pirate faction that the stop shooting at you. Nothing sucks more than you agent running for the Sansha's Nation and you can enter their stations but if you go to an asteroid belt or a gate they try to murderize you. I'd also like maybe special stations or events for those who have a high faction. Just my .02 isk.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:55:00 +0000

Ah, you see I wasn't claiming "economic competition is PvP"- I'm right with you there when you say that thats just Developer rhetoric.

But there is PvP in the life of the industrialist. Low sec hauling is, by it's nature, PvP centric. Although the hauler himself has no intention to be getting in any fights, he must still compete with hostile players. There are gatecamps to traverse, station camps, roaming gangs, and so forth. His kind of PvP competition is the art of avoiding combat (that is- the art of running away). Avoiding being blown up while being chased by pirates in fast PvP ships with probes is as much PvP as blowing someone up yourself.

And whats more, it's fun. Great fun, actually. There are few things more thrilling than not getting blown up in your big expensive floating brick, through skill, talent and luck.

Including hauling objectives as part of FW brings twofold benefits tot he system. Firstly, it gives those who enjoy the risky and profitable business of low sec hauling a way to get involved, while influencing the outcome (by providing tangible benefits to the PvP force). Secondly, it gives a new objective for both sides of PvPers- both the ever venerable gate camping for expensive valuables and (for once) glory (glory in gate camping? the horror!), and for those who need to bust gate camps and secure supply lines.

In other words, it provides amply more focal points for PvP combat in FW, as well as being an outlet for other types of EVE play. And as anyone whos spent any time trading in Trade Goods will tell you, it'd be a welcome break to be able to trade things for some sort of communal purpose other than just isk grinding.
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:43:00 +0000

Originally by: Patch86
I do.

You see, you make an assumption which I feel does not hold true. You assume that the only form of PvP involves 2 or more people in combat ships shooting at each other. This is simply not true.

Well, yeah three or four ships facing off is by definition pvp--when the devs say there's economic pvp and such things I think that's confusing things a bit and dismiss it as rhetoric. I'd call commerce competition yes but pvp, with the threat of ship loss and the prerequisite for gear and position, no. Does it require peculiar insights to succeed in it, sure but is it player vs player combat?

I can't concede it is because then effectively there's no limit to what you can classify is pvp, talking in local and forum warring is pvp because it has an adverse effect on others, logging into space is pvp because you occupy space and they don't, reselling goods is pvp...the list goes on but the idea of pvp just gets thinner and thinner.

I'm far from suggesting that we "nerf" anything industrial or take away anyone's gameplay tools; just to keep the combative pvp vis a vis the players as an urgent focus. The balancing act between the combat and commercial side of it is probably going to be difficult but those two themes, player centrism and fluid, traditional combat will decide whether people do it.

Invention, science and industry are all essential in the sense that they provide you tools to engage in some of the more visceral stuff but do they, in a factional warfare context, have the ability to captivate alot of people for a long time? To my mind, the answer is going to be no but its all anxious speculation at this point.

___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Braise Erighani

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:25:00 +0000

My thoughts about factional warfare

So, you want to turn from a free style political playground with multi racial corporations and alliances to a realm vs realm like context?

It seem a complete change from eve philosophy. I don't like it i don't like realm vs realm play at all. It is the most boring form of pvp environment i know (well, for me at least).

I think that factional warfare isn't the way to go in eve philosophy, not in the way it has been presented so far. Maybe something more along the lines of black ops operations conducted by capsuleers on behalf of factions?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:13:00 +0000

I do.

You see, you make an assumption which I feel does not hold true. You assume that the only form of PvP involves 2 or more people in combat ships shooting at each other. This is simply not true.

I've made many an isk in my day as a low sec hauler, shipping either trade goods or contract material from low sec to Empire. On paper, this seems deadly dull- spreadsheets of prices and hauling. But its not. The fun part is that you've got to dodge pirate gate camps, avoid roaming gangs, scout out dangerous routes, and generally play PvP against those who want to blow you out of the sky. IT does not involve shooting backm but its still PvP.

Why shouldn't FW have an outlet for that variety of PvP? And "It's not what I like to do" is not a valid argument, seeing as you can happily ignore it and never touch it with a barge pole if you don't want. If you think its boring or a grind fest, don't do it.
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:02:00 +0000

Originally by: Patch86
Idea for FW logistics:
You mentioned that it'd be possible to release ships (or other items) that can only be flown for FW activities (post #88). Based around that concept, a few ideas for industrialists spring to mind.

I can't believe people are running with this idea, its so arbitrary and counter intuitive to the Eve idea, which is pragmatism matters more than symbolism and fluff. We should be disabusing ourselves of such a "mechanic," not encouraging it.

Quote:
wall of text

None of this sounds fun at all tbh: navies camping, "ganking" npc haulers, and more pos management. How is this compelling when theres fertile ground for what you're describing in the player base already? If I commit to gallente navy it doesn't mean I'm going to stop going into 0.0 or running missions or pirating in low sec, but it does mean I do need to careful to avoid sloppy mistakes or the wrong route. Which is more plausible, adding in these Byzantine network of npcs or allowing players to be the main players and the main targets?

I made a similar, more elaborate post from a game design perspective a page back, read it and tell me if you still think your vision is still going in the right direction.

Despite what the devs say this is a pvp gimmick whose main goal is attracting more people to low sec first and creating a a less time consuming alternative to often fruitless 0.0 roaming second. The factional side of it is just a conceit, the caldari navy will still be a symbol in a station and a bunch of ship skins like it is now, placid will be placid and we'll all continue to go to Jita.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:32:00 +0000

[cont.]

4) No war would be complete without it: POSs. Arguably, POS maintenance is a major industrialist profession. The construction, maintenance and refuelling of POSs is a full time job for some (and arguably no less enjoyable than any of the other seemingly tedious industrialist professions out there, and involving all manner of hauling and mining jobs of it's own).

I suggest a system of "POS Agents" in hotspot systems, whereby the agent asks you to hold a moon with a POS for an allotted amount of time (whether the player should provide their own POS or have one leant to them as part of the mission are both fine possibilities- the latter would enable more control of what the POS constitutes by the mission designers). Should the POS be successfully maintained for the allotted time, rewards (such as suggested in the above 3 suggestions) will be doled out to the fighters on that side.

The enemy will of course be encouraged to either blow up or starve out (prevent fuelling) the POS, thus causing the mission to be failed and the rewards to be denied.

Those suggestions all encourage non-combat roles in FW PvP, and give haulers and miners important ways of getting involved. They encourage the use of low-sec hauling as a way of reaping direct PvP rewards. This means they encourage attacking and destroying haulers. And this means they encourage protecting and escorting haulers, and attempting to maintain effective controls of gates and entrances (for reasons other than just "LOL ME GANKY!".

Most importantly, it gives people a way of getting involved with FW and the FW community that will undoubtedly evolve, without necessarily being a fan of PvP. Industrial corps, industrial RPers, and individuals who don't want to fly PvP alongside people they don't know all have an outlet for getting involved in the war.
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Patch86

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:27:00 +0000

Idea for FW logistics:

You mentioned that it'd be possible to release ships (or other items) that can only be flown for FW activities (post #88). Based around that concept, a few ideas for industrialists spring to mind.

1) OK, so you have your battlefront. You have FW directing a bunch of Amarr players to a certain hot spot (and Minmatar the same). A particular station in the area is offering to build (for the purpose of FW as above) Faction Battleships and such to give to participating players.

However, for every Battleship the faction gives out, a material order has to be fulfilled. That is, there are special "contracts" (through the agent system) that make players ship large amounts of minerals and trade goods to the station. Once each allotted amount of materials has been fulfilled (spanning not one but several agent missions per batch) a ship can be given out (through whatever mechanism you decide to do that).

Therefore blowing up these player haulers directly effects how many of these special FW faction ships your team will be facing. disrupting logistics directly effects the outcome of the battle.

2) (AKA: "1) Lite"). Each FW hotspot could have a stockpile of supplies and equipment (faction ammo, named modules, discount ship repair service, etc.) for sale only to signed up FW participants. As above, the quantity of these items (or price of these services) will be directly effected by the amount of materials brought in by hauling missions.

While in conventional warfare there is a vital role for hauler pilots to bring in ships and modules to distribute in a warzone, in factional warfare they'll be doing exactly the same thing- except instead of bringing in the actual ammo and modules themselves, they'll be bringing in the materials (mineral / tradegoods / mission items) which will magically turn in to named faction ammo and modules on site.

Again, braving the lawless frontier to bring materials to the front line will directly effect the outcome of the battle, and disrupting this service will directly effect the effectiveness of ones enemy.

3) Following the "hauling for stuffs" format of the above two suggestions, there is a new dynamic that can be considered. Presumably, in the event of an all out war between factions, there are going to be more than just pod pilots involved. We should expect to see representatives of the Empires' large conventional (i.e. NPC) navies camping the hotspots too.

There are two obvious ways to apply this- the first is to create NPC wingmen who can be bought / rented / borrowed from the factions to accompany you in your conquesting. The second is to simply see an increase in quantity and quality of Navy NPCs camping certain areas (such as gates and stations, and even roaming belts) and shooting FW participants.

The industrialists are involved in this much the same way as above- they are expected to ship in materials under missions to the low-sec stations. When certain quotas are reached, there is either an increase in Navy mobs camping areas for FW participants, or there is an increase in availability / quality / decrease in price of NPC wingmen to be hired.

Shooting the haulers will mean a direct decrease in strength of NPC enemies.

[out of characters, woh )
------

Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Iluminat

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:12:00 +0000

MayB some agents for mini profesions like:
Spying, corpteft, mercenary jobs, transport etc.....
Not for lp's and isk and standings. only for ranks and medals.
Make missions for fleetbattles between factions with a timer so you can sign in and battle takes place 2 days later.
If you dont show up you lose ranks.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Badjak

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:37:00 +0000

Make 0.1 - 0.4 FW only. If you want to travel trough it freely you have to make a choice for with faction you fight. Or pay for a pass trough say 1M for 1 day.

The faction fighters can shoot each other without interference of concord and guns.
But make a new faction: The pirate faction. This faction can shoot all other faction fighters, but can't shoot the people with a pass(concord comes in or someone else who kicks there butts).

Make missions for the basic 4 factions but not for the pirates, they are pirates nothing else they dont care about missions .

There could be a problem with pirates not shooting pirates, but i dont know if they do that now anyway.

Create a communication channel with a mission system(lets call it the faction warfare mission system fwms). That calls people for help whene there is a mission or something(a base or so) is under attack. And let that system make it easy to contact the people who are going for the missions even if there are like 3 jumps out.
The system then puts you in a gang of some sort and your reward is based on you damage, EW, support, kills and ship loss. This gang can also record you achievenents and put you on some sort of faction board so you can compete within your own faction.

The fwms can also call in for industrial support. Lets say fwms creates a mission for the need mexallon and tritanium for the building of ammo. Based on the ammounts of minerals brought in compaired with the ammounts of the other factions the faction ammo LP cost reduces.

There can also be a industrial missions to get stuff in for building a turret at a gate(web turret/painter turret or somthing).
Then there is a (combat)mission to help transport the buildded turret to it destination. and so on.....

ps. sorry for the bad english.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Aramendel

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:56:00 +0000

Edited by: Aramendel on 16/09/2007 08:57:15
Reposting from the thread about thison the information portal:

------------------

Originally by: CCP Ginger
We are simply aiming for a design which encourages, rewards and makes it more viable to achieve objectives with a small gang as opposed to a large fleet. Of course there won't be anything stopping people from bringing large fleets if they so wish.

The problem here is that if people can bring a blob they *will* bring a blob.

Even if you make the mission "objectives" only completeable by 5 people similar to the gang mission feature people will simply get a 20 man blob to finish 4 different engagements fast and without major losses by steamrolling their opponents with everyone in the group being able to claim the reward from one engagement.
---------------

Of cource they will have a smaller reward/time ratio, but it will still be worth it. The reward/time would decrease by the factor 4. But the risk over time will decrease by at least the factor 10. In an even engagement you will have around 50% chance to loose your ship. In four 20 vs 5 battles you have *maybe* a 5% chance for that.

Essentially, if people will have a way to "grind" in factional warfare - doing it with reduced efficiency, but even more reduced risk - it will happen. Hell, we might see *isk farmer* groups doing it if the rewards are good & sellable. You would have to reduce the rewards for factional warfare exponentially with increased gang sizes (or multiple gangs working together), because likewise the risk is reduced exponentially with more people.
A 10 people gang has far more than only twice the chance to win vs a 5 people gang than a 5 people gang has vs a 5 people gang.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:36:00 +0000

Originally by: Seringol
Originally by: Phantom Speedrunner
To me this is another example of a new feature catering to the PVP (minority) crowd and not the PVE (majority) crowd. The fact it is in lowsec will mean the same dudes who gate camp, grief and other "legitimate gameplay" will send those curious carebares back to Empire minus thier pod ... and they wont be back.

So ultimately will be a tool catered to the 10% of the gaming population rather than the vast amount in Empire screaming for something to do they havent been doing already. (just look at the map and see how empty 0.0 is in players online)

Factional warfare should of been instanced so at least some level of a playing field and consesual nature would have been involved. Factional warefare was meant to be the bridge to get PVE'ers to ease their way into PVP but in the latest blog seems the hardcore dev crowd has won over again. (you guys should buy Everquest , you seem to share the same mentality as the uber raiders that run that game)

See, im agreeing with this person right now-
I dont want this to be open lowsec based for the same reason I dont go to lowsec right now as it is: I dont want to deal with random people warping in and blowing up all my ****, when they are uninvolved with the task(s) at hand.

Give me a ship and its not that big of a deal, but if I am going to be flying *my* ships that I ratted up the money for, no, I will not be risking it when someone in something bigger is right around the corner.

And this is lowsec/ 0.0 - someone is always right around the corner.

If you want me to enter 0.0 on anything near a constant basis, I better have a damn security blanket of some sort, or guess what- nothing is changing for me and likely many others.

Seringol & Phantom: Can I have your stuff?

Some of the things said in here are unreal, instancing? Getting free ships? Jesus, what game are you guys playing?

You guys do understand that a leaner, more skilled minority can disrupt, demoralize and ultimately destroy larger groups right?
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Albrecht Wassenar

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:01:00 +0000

So FW is scheduled for Rev III or after?
-------------------------------------
Join "TKI-net" for more information

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Seringol

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:59:00 +0000

Originally by: Phantom Speedrunner
To me this is another example of a new feature catering to the PVP (minority) crowd and not the PVE (majority) crowd. The fact it is in lowsec will mean the same dudes who gate camp, grief and other "legitimate gameplay" will send those curious carebares back to Empire minus thier pod ... and they wont be back.

So ultimately will be a tool catered to the 10% of the gaming population rather than the vast amount in Empire screaming for something to do they havent been doing already. (just look at the map and see how empty 0.0 is in players online)

Factional warfare should of been instanced so at least some level of a playing field and consesual nature would have been involved. Factional warefare was meant to be the bridge to get PVE'ers to ease their way into PVP but in the latest blog seems the hardcore dev crowd has won over again. (you guys should buy Everquest , you seem to share the same mentality as the uber raiders that run that game)

See, im agreeing with this person right now-
I dont want this to be open lowsec based for the same reason I dont go to lowsec right now as it is: I dont want to deal with random people warping in and blowing up all my ****, when they are uninvolved with the task(s) at hand.

Give me a ship and its not that big of a deal, but if I am going to be flying *my* ships that I ratted up the money for, no, I will not be risking it when someone in something bigger is right around the corner.

And this is lowsec/ 0.0 - someone is always right around the corner.

If you want me to enter 0.0 on anything near a constant basis, I better have a damn security blanket of some sort, or guess what- nothing is changing for me and likely many others.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Phantom Speedrunner

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:54:00 +0000

To me this is another example of a new feature catering to the PVP (minority) crowd and not the PVE (majority) crowd. The fact it is in lowsec will mean the same dudes who gate camp, grief and other "legitimate gameplay" will send those curious carebares back to Empire minus thier pod ... and they wont be back.

So ultimately will be a tool catered to the 10% of the gaming population rather than the vast amount in Empire screaming for something to do they havent been doing already. (just look at the map and see how empty 0.0 is in players online)

Factional warfare should of been instanced so at least some level of a playing field and consesual nature would have been involved. Factional warefare was meant to be the bridge to get PVE'ers to ease their way into PVP but in the latest blog seems the hardcore dev crowd has won over again. (you guys should buy Everquest , you seem to share the same mentality as the uber raiders that run that game)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Muchlove Kebab

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:31:00 +0000

If and when you can fight for a pirate faction, aint the life gonna get quite hard as alliances tend hunt trespassers down like dogs?

Just comparatively imagining neutrals going out for pirate missions... Oh well, maybe i just got the picture all wrong.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Halycon Gamma

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:24:00 +0000

Okay, this is an odd question but.. what about mercenaries ? I really don't care about factions one way or another, and unless the rewards are somewhere on the other side of very good, I don't see myself changing my career path to bring myself in line with factional warfare. With all of that being said, is there any chance on a seperate career path for a mercenary type player in the pipeline for FW?

Higher risk missions(why risk our best on something we can send disposable Merc Scum at) with a much reduced payout in LP toward faction rewards? Mercenaries won't be liked, won't be trusted, and they sure as heck wouldn't progress as fast toward a goal. But on the other side, they don't take AS MANY NPC, factional dings. Mercenaries would still be flagged PVP though, but to all factions they aren't fighting for, its a career choice. But it would provide a resource for larger FW battles as it progresses out of its infancy.

For example, you're part of the Gal Faction, and you need 300 ships to complete some goal you've set, or the game has set you. You can only find 250 Gal's willing to take part, but you can also find a Corp flagged as a FW Merc Corp with 50 players in it. You hire them, they get flagged Gal Merc for the duration of the contract to make it easier for everyone to see what faction they belong to, and the engagement goes off as planned.

Its limiting in how many players would be willing to do it; by its risks(everyone hates you PVP wise, think NBSI!), and its limited rewards(you're an infidel and don't deserve our best payouts). The upside is; the NPC factions themselves won't really ever completely hate you(you're just doing a job), and you can progress in all LP stores for FW only goods(granted much much more slowly). You could do something on number of kills to where the Merc in question couldn't ever kill to many of one factions ships compared to another to make it a balancing act in keeping your Merc status as well(you've killed too many Min vs Am, so you can't take contracts from Min until you bring the numbers more in line to each other). Think of it as Faction Warfare Hard Mode.

Making it harder and slower, limits the number of people that will do it, keeping factional warfare as a complete system alive. But it would be a great drop-in companion system for people who want to involve themselves in it, but really dislike the idea of wedding themselves to a faction.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by StarMartyr

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 04:15:00 +0000

I would like to see either a new smuggler mini-profession and/or the tools necessary to be an effective smuggler made available so that you could run guns or troops or militants or medicine or whatever for your faction. Running a load of Minnie freedom fighters and some hi-tek small arms and explosives deep into Amarr space would be a rewarding and exciting experience. If you get caught you get a system-wide flag that allows hostile factions to hunt you down and friendly factions to offer assistance. "Gun Runner in local! Get 'em!"

The necessary tools would be skills and modules that allow you to move contraband with varying chances of getting busted depending on what you're trying to move and where you plan on moving it. Modules like hidden/cloaked cargo holds and scanner shields or skills that give you a chance of having an inside man/sympathizer willing to look the other way or allow you to capitalize on someone else's greed and bribe your way through would be fundamental to making it work.

Scanner shields should have a high cpu cost and use a high slot and could be balanced towards the races scanning methods: some are really effective vs Amarr and not so good versus anyone else just like ECM is balanced now.

Hidden or cloaked cargo holds would also have a high cpu cost (a significant percentage of you base cpu after skills and mods would work here) and perhaps cost you some cargo space to take into account all the false bulkheads and hidden spaces that are spread all your hull and the difficulty in maintaining the cargo fields in those spaces without alerting the authorities by their presence.

The skills would only be available through certain channels (Read: Lp Store.) to people who have proven their worth. I think most of them would be Leadership or Social based.

Wherever you have war you have war profiteering so let's not forget the amoral players. I'd have no problem running some guns into Amarr space for the Minnies and returning with Vitoc supplies for sieged Amarr Holders on the front lines as long as my fee is paid. Maybe it's time for the rise of an Empire wide criminal cartel that the players have a hand in creating and establishing. Of course, the Syndicate and perhaps the Angels may have a thing or two to say about this but their opinions are of no concern to us.

Anyway, it looks like it will be an epic release when it goes live so don't listen to the whiners: do it right and release it when it's ready and no sooner.

SM
==================================================
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
-George Carlin (1937 - )

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Lui Kai

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:22:00 +0000

As a sidenote - if docking is restricted for enemies of a faction, the Caldari will have the biggest fighting force Eve has ever seen: Everyone that doesn't want to stop shopping at Jita-mart.
----------------

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Bellum Eternus

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:11:00 +0000

Ginger:

Why not implement some sort of bounty system, so that when you attack/destroy enemy factional warfare targets (player ships, not NPCs), you get an ISK payout. Additionally, if you're flying the 'correct' ship for your faction while doing the killing, then you get a further bonus.

This would motivate people to choose to attack factional warfare targets over normal neutrals a bit, and it would also motivate people to use their faction specific ships while not providing a performance advantages to anyone who chooses not to.

As for it being a disadvantage to those who wish to fly the wrong race of ship for the faction that they trained up and miss out on a bounty bonus, then maybe that's a choice they need to examine when they willingly sign up for a faction opposite to that of the ship type they're trained for.

IMO in order to make factional warfare interesting and fun, there needs to be *significant* rewards for the players involved in order to make it interesting and worthwhile to participate in.

RPing for the simple sake of RP isn't enough for most players IMO, otherwise you'd see a much larger number of players doing it. Personal gain is the #1 motivating factor in Eve. Use that as a tool to drive participation in FW, and you'll see it grow into something huge. Ignore that, and it will probably be just another small part of Eve that a few players take part in, but no one really pays any attention to. Similar to how most RP/events are now.

I think that making FW low-sec focused is an *outstanding* idea. Lowsec is a unique environment and IMO it's going to waste. Anything to improve the lowsec population will be a huge improvement to Eve overall.

Bellum Eternus
[Vid]Blood Corsairs - Day One

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:42:00 +0000

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: CCP Ginger

Borrowing ships is a bit of a pain in the ass mechanics wise. Being rewarded ships that you can only fly why you participate in factional warfare is somewhat easier.

This is dumb, dont do this.

First of all:

Factional Warfare should not have an "off" switch. If you are fighting for Amarr you cant just say "Oh, i am sorry i dont want to fight right now". Everything should be factional warfare, there should be no set objectives, nothing. It all needs to be fluid.

Agree again but let me harp on the fluidity point because in my mind its the most important part of FW; the more complicated this process becomes, the more its linked to empire fueling or grinding faction npcs to gather argent dawn tokens to turn into for the more terrible and unattractive it becomes. Similar complaint with faction ship constraints and other such arbitrary nonsense, it doesn't make sense and isn't practical.

The question CCP needs to be asking is: How can we create a model and mechanism for PVP in empire as a means to enhance the prospects and activity in low sec. The factional stuff is just symbolism or a gameplay conceit that I think too many players are tripping up on and trying to recreate the current banal mission running system with a side of pvp. The focus should be pvp from the outset and not rehashing mission schemes and as Guo says, once you're in you can't just toggle it off on a whim. I and others who are pragmatisits couldn't care less who owns what system or whose name is where, I want to know if FW is worth my time and if it has tangible & competative rewards. If its not natural and intuitive, chances are it won't be fun either.

I would love some ambitious scheme to annex this space and that but lets be realistic, the more grandiose these plans become the more inaccessible and cumbersome they become too as we worry about new logic for npcs, new triggers, new code, and an experiance that will likely be stillborn on release. Eve is in desperate need for some kind of PVP that doesn't demand three or four hours of 0.0 roaming to find clueless ratters or an alternative to breaking newb 0.0 camps and this has the possibility to be that feature.

We know people like to roam and small ships are quite popular so naturally the system should mimic this, 4 sides, 4 wars, so far so good. Play sloppily and you turn into points for the rival side, play well and you enhance your ability to gain 0.0 npc spawns in empire, that gives you the option to skirmish near the 0.0 entry ways and give you some incentive to move out there or just bide your time in low sec and deny others the spawns. I don't think low sec boosters are going to be enough of an incentive to give this the kind of appeal and long term resiliance that it really needs. Whatever the mechanic keep it simple, but elegant.

I think the problem here with injecting some more life into the FW schema beyond, 0.0 style combat in empire is not FW proper but the extremely primitive war system, if we could enhance our war options then I suspect we may see more options for FW as a consequence. If the war system doesn't see some love I fear the FW will turn into cosmos v2 and its all about the beacon spawns and tedium.
___
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Farrellus Cameron

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:36:00 +0000

As for the docking, I'd like to see enemies faction members having to pay a fee, basically to bribe their way past the docking security.

Also, when you take over a system there should spawn resistance fighter NPCs. The more systems you take the more resistance fighters spawn. That way the more systems you take the harder it will be to keep them all secure.
----------------------------------------------------

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Goumindong

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:42:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
They are under our consideration, theres always been a plan to allow people to declare on factional alliances, but im really not sure whether we will get this in the first release.

Id rather see the four empires at war, and get that balanced and working as we all know what happens to the best laid ideas once they hit thousands of players. After that we will be in a better place to open up the ball park.

But I will get to the points, were trying to work through everyone but its the weekend and im just off down the pub. Will write more soon!

I dont mean "declare on" i mean "declare for"

What you are describing seems to be PvP that is not integrated into the world and that players can turn on and off at will.[Instanced PvP is bad]

This is bad, dont do that.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by MasterEnt

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:02:00 +0000

Sorry if this was answered before, but will Factional Warfare have an impact on Empire borders?

I think it would be cool as hell to see fringe systems change territory or see a part of an Amarr region fall to Mimntar hands.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dr Cedric

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:47:00 +0000

So, I didn't get to read the whole thing, I will come back later and do so. In the mean time, here are a few of my ideas.

I think it would be fun to have a military rank for each faction you fight for. It could be a glory thing "yeah, I'm working to become a general for the Caldari Navy" and when you have certain 'rankings' in the faction you fight for, the cost for LP offers are significantly reduced. This would let people who really wanted to go overboard to fly a Caldari Navy XXXX with Caldari Ammo, Modules, and possibly even rigs!

Also, along with the ranking idea, how about letting a general or some such become 'Viceroy' of a Faction station. He gets to set (within reason, i suppose) taxes on non allied factions, limit this or that. This one might be a bit extreme, but its an idea.

Also, It seems that this will be difficult to separtate non-participants from those who are involved in the FW. How to deal with miners who log on after work to wind down, or the mission runners who just want ISK and cool gear?

Just questions, gotta go, love the idea

Dr Cedric

Lead Diplomat - Shock and Awe

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Stakhanov

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:44:00 +0000

Will factional warfare also introduce factional piracy ? There are lots of pirates out there (roleplayers or not) who wish they could ally with rats , and preferably raise standings without PvE activities. After all , concord is giving unthinkable amounts of ISK in bounties - it would be normal that pirate factions offer similar incentives for ridding them of overzealous empire loyalists.

Allegiance to pirate factions should give access to hidden deadspace complexes , including in highsec. Being able to fit light ships and perhaps use concord disrupting devices as an outlaw in highsec would be great , and provide new opportunities for pirate hunters.

Originally by: Cipher7
If you manage to get baited, what's your skill, being a good victim?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:44:00 +0000

Depends on mechanics of war itself. But thats fact - in real pvp situations, Gallente are great in short range small group skirmish and Caldari constantly whine about own inability to pvp (somewhat untrue, but still theres something in it), and Amarr are best against Caldari ships. Against T2 minmatar ships, all Amarrs but droneships are sadly useless (92.5% base Em resist, than you).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by kimish

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:33:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon

Pretty please avoid making great good versus evil war (amarr+caldari vs minmatar+gallente).

amarr+caldari vs. gellente+minmatar?! :S
will be the shortest war EVER!!! two sec and gellente+minmatar will be dance at the headquerters, while cal+amarr will be ehh.. ekstinct..

balance is NOT a thing that there is right now:P
_____
_____
"When the moderators are gone, the trolls dances on the table."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ghostess

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:59:00 +0000

I was just talking about this with a friend. If things go as I think they should there won't be one central system for commerce in eve but one for each faction. Prices would change more between regions and I think that would be great.

Also, this should reduce server loads in Jita and spread it's population a bit. This also creates some opportunities for pilots who choose to stay neutral and move stuff between regions; The profession trader might actually get a meaning. =)

CEO - UMC

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dalyn Arathon

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:50:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
They are under our consideration, theres always been a plan to allow people to declare on factional alliances, but im really not sure whether we will get this in the first release.

Id rather see the four empires at war, and get that balanced and working as we all know what happens to the best laid ideas once they hit thousands of players. After that we will be in a better place to open up the ball park.

But I will get to the points, were trying to work through everyone but its the weekend and im just off down the pub. Will write more soon!

Thanks. I guess it is Saturday in Iceland, too, isn't it? Silly me . . . I guess I assumed you were working today since you'd already gotten such extensive replies out.

Dalyn

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:30:00 +0000

There is one extremly cool thing that might get implemented when the war begins;

Lowsec separating empires!
2-5 systems wide area of war frontier.
This would separate markets, industrial and mission economies of NPC empires. Minerals, capital fuels, T2 equipment and components, NPC trade goods, mission stuff, research stuff, cosmos stuff.

Currently, in economy, all empire is really one place. With few exceptions, every highsec system is just X safe, AFK jumps in a freighter from Jita. Suicide gankers do not change that much.
With lowsec isolation lands of safe systems, miners, builders, inventors, and to much bigger degree - traders and pirates - will have much more intresting lives. Much much.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:00 +0000

They are under our consideration, theres always been a plan to allow people to declare on factional alliances, but im really not sure whether we will get this in the first release.

Id rather see the four empires at war, and get that balanced and working as we all know what happens to the best laid ideas once they hit thousands of players. After that we will be in a better place to open up the ball park.

But I will get to the points, were trying to work through everyone but its the weekend and im just off down the pub. Will write more soon!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Goumindong

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:39:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger

Borrowing ships is a bit of a pain in the ass mechanics wise. Being rewarded ships that you can only fly why you participate in factional warfare is somewhat easier.

This is dumb, dont do this.

First of all:

Factional Warfare should not have an "off" switch. If you are fighting for Amarr you cant just say "Oh, i am sorry i dont want to fight right now". Everything should be factional warfare, there should be no set objectives, nothing. It all needs to be fluid.

Second of all: Rewards are rewards and are not to be limited in scope by "how" i can use them. Pod pilots are mercenaries for the empire, treat them like they are.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dalyn Arathon

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:19:00 +0000

CCP Ginger (or Wrangler, or someone else working on the project?), I think that there are probably a large number of people who would like to see that you at least acknowledge the concerns raised in my post and the first part of The Cosmopolite's. I believe that these are some issues that could really add some depth and realism to factional warfare.

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=595206&page=2#59

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=595206&page=3#62

I would also like to emphasize that it's not just Star Fraction revolutionaries/anarchists (depending on which particular way you want to spin us, but everyone does) who would agree with some of the suggestions that I have made. Very few experience pilots outside of roleplay corporations have any but the most superficial allegiance for the empire that birthed them, and it would be a shame to ignore the rich player base that does not want to take a side, but might still want to participate in factional warfare.

Even if you haven't fully thought through these ideas yet, I think it would be nice to at least get an acknowledgment that they are under consideration, and perhaps some occasional updates on what you're thinking.

The second thing that I would like to do is to advocate for the devil, so to speak. You have a very well developed, active and competent roleplay corp player base in two of the four empires at least, and it would be a shame to waste those resources. As an example, (much as I might hate CVA in character) I think that they would be a wonderful resource for the Amarrian faction to work with in the FW process.

Dalyn

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:53:00 +0000

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon

Pretty please avoid making great good versus evil war (amarr+caldari vs minmatar+gallente).

I have to stop you here and point out that there is no good and evil in EVE, you have 4 factions each with multiple facets to their nature but each could, in the given context or view, be thought of as good and evil. However, things are more complex than that

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon

Let it have more political complexity, with NPC corporation-level conflicts inside factions, occasional conflicts with "friendly" faction corps and so on and so on. In Eve background, NPC corps always had shareholders and competitors, lets use this information so we can choose to fight in wars more like in Cyberpunk then in Middlearth :) Naturally, people working for navy/fleet or goverment corps, and all other - time to time, would still take part in the great national war.

While bringing in intrigue and infighting in factional warfare is alluring, we are more likely to try to bring this in via some storytelling functionality than have players declare for corporations within an alliance. At least for the first release of factional warfare.

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon

Edited for more;
Reward for flying the "right" faction ships would be really nice. Nothing to affect ship parameters, my Gallente ship will not start to hate me for flying for the Emperor. Buf FW NPCs may do so. For example they can give me less FW rewards if I used non-Amarr ship in fight - "We had to edit your godless gallentish ship from our propaganda holoreels, what would this do to our peoples morale if they've seen our pilots prefer foreign ships over our superior and blessed technology? We do not like that.".

What this ends up doing is penalizing people for flying the ships they have trained for, if they are not their racial type. While im all for racial diversity im not sure how much or if we want to force it in this context. But I do like the vision of people all flying the racial ships of that faction, im just not sure its something thats pratical to implement.

Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon

Idea for industrialists;
Allow industrialists to get FW patriotism points or whatevers by donating ships and equipment for the country. Somehow make them exposed to enemy pvp attack at least once on the way (maybe let them donate ships in some plex that can be attacked etc).
This way industrial characters can get whatever bonuses FW gives if they can manage to get protection etc.

Rather than donating ships and stuff, id rather try to get them more integrally based by building and mining and hauling for that faction, so supply becomes as important as the fight, and you can hurt people by killing their supply chains etc. That way bringing them right into the crux of it all and forcing others to protect them and such things as that.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by George K'ntara

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:59:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Jezala
So what happens when we have a situation where the Amarr empire is kicking the snot out of the Minmitar Republic and defeating them at every engagement? How is the progress of the war manifested in the universe? What happens when one faction "wins" over the others?

I guess what I'm really asking is: does the outcomes of the factional warfare fights result in meaningful change of the EVE universe or is it just some prearranged fights that impacts your faction standing?

Currently we forssee battles over low sec systems, fighting can occur everywhere but low sec will be the focal point of the too and fro initially.

If one side is beating the snot out of the other, then there beating the snot out of the other, but controlling more systems may mean that they become progressively harder to control, alternatively, maybe they dont and you just get what you get. What do you think?

I think it makes sense as one side advances further into enemy space that the defense goes up and it becomes more dependent on player involvement to make further strides. For a couple reasons. One, as you advance the supposed supply lines get longer, and you haven't had time to build up an infrastructure behind you since you just blew up the enemies when you came through. Two, the defense is able to concentrate its defense on fewer places while the advancing side now has more places to protect.

So basically the further you get the harder it should be to attack and easier to defend. If it was implemented right. No space would ever be completely controlled by an opposing fraction and it could keep the fighting going, allowing you to see results for your work but give you a reason to get more organized and keep fighting.

The only things not in control would be an overwhelming group of players choosing one side to fight for and not being able to be stopped. I don't see how you can avoid this anyway, but I think that the breakdown in the fractions will be balanced enough to prevent one from taking over all of lowsec.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:48:00 +0000

Originally by: TJ17
it would be nice to see factional warfare more then just missions/cosmos as in other empires can take over others station like gallante taking caldari stations and so on. it should be based on how many people do the factional warefare in order for station change or something other then a boring pos siege deal you should also expand it to high sec aswell since it is faction vs faction and not just a battle for low sec.

It will defintely not be just another COSMOS or some funky missions. But we are wanting to start it off mainly concentrated in low sec as its the perfect place for such a fight, over the border regions. But later on we will look at expanding the main scrap into other areas.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by 4rc4ng3L

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:48:00 +0000

Edited by: 4rc4ng3L on 15/09/2007 17:50:19

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Helison
Some random thoughts:

Originally by: Helison

*) Logistical ops are a must. "Hey this viator is supplying the enemy with ammunition! Shoot it!"

Id like to hear more about ideas for such things, as well as ideas for having industry and such like in factional warfare, we have some cool ideas but id like to hear from you all about this aspect as well.

I agree with this. Not only is it a fun idea, it seems the only way to differentiate the faction missions whatever they might be from actual arduous agent missions.

If you take the pvp touney just gone, each player had a specific role, this should be the way the faction warfare is carried out, as opposed to missions where its a matter of fitting a tank for the two main dmg types than going with that.

BS's providing heavy support, assault frigs providing fighters and frig protection, the logistics to keep everyone in check, etc. That way everyone has a job to do and everyone feels they are providing a needed role.

With this you could then be awarded medals for carrying out that role effectively, aka, pilot in AF - kills 100 firgs in it = fighter support medal, you get the idea but what it does it encourage a multitude of ship types and tactics that take you well away from the agent missions style of play. Its just another way of keeping people intested and prevents them from going static grinds to a certain degree.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:42:00 +0000

Originally by: Jezala
So what happens when we have a situation where the Amarr empire is kicking the snot out of the Minmitar Republic and defeating them at every engagement? How is the progress of the war manifested in the universe? What happens when one faction "wins" over the others?

I guess what I'm really asking is: does the outcomes of the factional warfare fights result in meaningful change of the EVE universe or is it just some prearranged fights that impacts your faction standing?

Currently we forssee battles over low sec systems, fighting can occur everywhere but low sec will be the focal point of the too and fro initially.

If one side is beating the snot out of the other, then there beating the snot out of the other, but controlling more systems may mean that they become progressively harder to control, alternatively, maybe they dont and you just get what you get. What do you think?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Seringol

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:40:00 +0000

I may have a solution to the issues of ship usage, small gangs, and how to promote fighting without causing all hell to break loose for everyone.

Oh, and this isnt all my own, Im running with ideas brought up by others-

You enter a station owned by your faction and talk to the 'Faction Warfare' agent.
He asks you how commited you are to the cause, giving three or so options-
Trying to lend a hand, Along for the ride, Till the death, etc.

He gives you a list of options, some including simple courier and the like, but in there is
the option for more difficult things, if you chose the more involved choices.

You see an option for 'Attack on X System'

You select it, and he begins to tell you of how a fight is forming up in that system, and that they need competent pilots to fly their ships, as all of their pilots are on leave and caught venereal diseases, and are thus in no condition to fight.

You accept, and based on your loyalty, and the maximum allowances of the mission ( no larger than a frigate ) you are given a choice of ships and loadout.

Someone skilled in fighting will be able to fit more. Someone who has been a miner all their lives will be given a base model ship that they may not be able to pilot under normal circumstances, but hey- not everything works perfect, you know?

So, we now have 6-10 fighters in a random deadspace in this system ( everyone was warped there with ships and ammo, drones, etc. ) to fight it out until one ship remains. Victory is declared for the side, LP/Isk is distributed to all at appropriate rates ( victory, survived, kills, etc.. ) and all are returned to their original station.

To make things faster, im wondering if there should be generic fights, and people can fit themselves and be ready in a queue, and then get inserted into a fight there.

The same format could be applied to doing missions for the faction-
You and your compatriots are being tasked with the destruction of this freighter carrying water, you have until 2200 to accomplish your mission.

At the same time, a message is going out over local in the system ( or even region? ) that an attack will be coming from Caldari in a matter of minutes, talk to a faction agent for orders.

You run to station, get orders ( getting choice to use your own equipment [in limits] , or faction issue ). You get warped to the starting place, and the fighting commences.

-------

Heres what im looking at- There are going to be people that want to ruin all of this for everyone, and people that dont want to get involved- at all.

A setup like this provides some level of interaction, and some balance as well.

The last thing I want when doing one of these missions is have some uninvoved pirates swoop in and kill us all in the middle of the fight, because they see it as fun or an opportunity to get some easy kills.

Also, you have the aspect of personal equipment- on the lower level missions, frigs or maybe Cruisers if your standing is high enough, and as the amount of people and size of the missions increases, so does what you can bring.

I dont know how to program in temporary ability, to let someone fly faction issue gear.
It would be more work, but possibly special faction model ships with different color schemes, that are used only in this warfare setup? Gives Gallente Frig III, or whatever. Or even no minimum usage requirements, so that anyone can fly them.

Make the fighting models ( given only for these missions ) a little more powerful, and I think you have ship usage and small gang combat in the bag.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:38:00 +0000

Originally by: Tsumik
I agree I would really like to see more use of factional ships (which I think I read before somewhere they'll be fixed). And I really think there should be something that sort of pushes people to use ships that coralate to their respective races. Ie. fighting for the Amarr should pushs you or perhaps not penalize you from flying other race ships.

Well, we like the idea of racial fleets but this has its inherent problems in itself. And were not to keen on the idea of penalizing people for flying other races ships. But obviously were thinking of handing out rewards and the LP store is a good way of doing this, but would be tied and balanced towards factional warfare. And it would only make sense in this store to have some kind of faction ships, whether new ones or existing ones remains to be seen. But these will definitely be racial, Amarr arent going to reward you with Minamtar ships :) Fendhal is our man in Amsterdam as far as all this goes but it hasnt been hammered out.

Originally by: Tsumik

I also think besides the small gang battles, the parts that really get me about historacal games is large scale battles happening and being a small part of that battle. And nothing so grand as "if I don't complete this objective the rest of the fleet won't be able to do their parts" but more like "if I can take out this outpost battery the fleet can have a slight edge fighting in this system" I think alot of games make the play so super heroic that they alone determine the way the battle goes. It would be fun if there was big push battles like into a system and you were put into various fronts/objectives by some sort of factional fleet commander. And the faster you complete your small objective the faster someone else in the same battle can complete their part.

I like the way you think and we want to integrate a campaign system into the whole deal and putting tactical objectives into it. We dont know how far we can take this but this is one of the areas we really looking for some input and funk on.

Originally by: Tsumik

It would be also cool to be part of "covert/black ops" type missions where the faction lets you borrow special modules or ships for just that mission and then they take it back afterwards. This would potentially give some more coolness to factional warfare by allowing you to use ships/modules that are only in factional warfare.

Otherwise good job guys look forward to it!

Borrowing ships is a bit of a pain in the ass mechanics wise. Being rewarded ships that you can only fly why you participate in factional warfare is somewhat easier.

Thanks for the feedback.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:25:00 +0000

Originally by: Helison
Some random thoughts:

*) About stations: It has to be possible that NPC-stations are taken over by other NPC-factions. In addition to this Id like to see Interbus implemented first. Interbus could move all your goods (and your corp goods including worthy BPOs) to a friendly station, if the station changes the owner.

When you say, take over the station, how do you mean? Convert a minmatar one to an amarr one for example? There are also agents in stations which people will be wanting to use, docking rights?

Currently we are still considering the whole station/docking rights hotch potch so no, nothing decided on this atm.

Personally I like the idea of Interbus but it needs careful balancing and consideration, however if we were going to close of stations to people then yes, I would say we would need a system like this implemented.

Originally by: Helison

*) While activly fighting for a faction, it should be NOT possible to use the hostile stations. But after end of the fighting it should be possible to dock again within 2-4 weeks.

I appreciate the sentiment but its better if you back these things up with solid reasoning, however I agree with the basic principal that factional warfare should have an effect, but one that can be regained with some hard work. However, like I say, the whole docking issue is up in the air so proposed systems are all being considered.

Originally by: Helison

*) Standings: It should be possible to regain all your lost standings and fight for the opposing faction, but it should be quite difficult to really change the faction. But it should be "quite" easy to regain as much standing to be able to travel again in the regions of the former enemy.

Weeeell, you see, if you have say, -8 towards Amarr this pretty much means you have blown hundreds of their ships away. They dont like you, your pretty much in their top bad arse list of people they dont like. It doesnt make any sesne that they would let you dock at their stations but nethertheless! But, in principle a system that would let you, over a considered period of time, be able to regain dog eaten standings should be considered. However, while the Amarr hate you, the minnies will like you no doubt, so you can still partipate in factional warfare, just not for the side that hates you guts.

Originally by: Helison

*) Factional warfare has to be interesting also for veterans!

Its going to be interesting for everyone, new players and vets included. This is EVE and its open after all.

Originally by: Helison

*) It should NOT be rewarding to bring 300+ players to win an objective. This could also be achieved more easily if you provide many but small objectives instead of single, bigger ones.

Yup, were aiming towards small gangs and making objectives more rewarding to be done in such a way, and obviously, this is one such way of doing so, but it wont be enough by itself, but we have a plan (tm).

Originally by: Helison

*) Logistical ops are a must. "Hey this viator is supplying the enemy with ammunition! Shoot it!"

Id like to hear more about ideas for such things, as well as ideas for having industry and such like in factional warfare, we have some cool ideas but id like to hear from you all about this aspect as well.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Ginger

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:12:00 +0000

Originally by: Adhar Khorin
Has there been any consideration toward allowing a FW pilot to "call in support" from the faction navy to defend sovereign space?

The amount of support (ie, NPC naval vessels) that you'd be able to call in would depend on your standing, and could also cost standing and/or LP to (literally) call in the favor. It would also introduce one hell of an element of surprise when you're defending your own turf. Invaders see small gang, engage said gang, and then NPC navy shows up to the party.

Actually there have been discussions and designs written up about NPC wingmen, which is basically what you are saying here but with a little more functionality tied in. Im going to dig it up and check it out, thanks!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Descenter

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:31:00 +0000

I like to se that its porsible to do this on your own,
and maby with a new chance to meet new ingame freinds...
somthing like you go to a Agent's bm and wait,
until 2 more pilots arive, you are then "forced" to team up,
to continue the mission.

To many things in EVE is imporsible for persons who would not like to join a corp, and/or will or can't go to low sec systems.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Destiny Calling

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:14:00 +0000

Will it be possible to ally myself with the pirate factions, if not in the initial release, is it on th drawing board / napkin?

It all looks quite exciting, I can wait.

Destiny

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellspeth Murdron

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:37:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger
Originally by: Tharrn
If you want to make it the awesome version then please, please, please make it so that someone who has ****ed off a faction enough can no longer dock at their stations. Nothing turns me off as much as supposed enemies of Amarr being based out of the Emperor Family Station in Amarr...

This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.

My concern is that currently, many self-declared enemies of a particular faction live/work in/for the faction they claim to hate. For example, if you're a pirate, or someone with a bio that reads "Death to the Caldari", you probably shouldn't have that 7.5 standing from working for CalNav's agents so much. I guess what I'm saying is this: exclusion from a station might be too harsh, but exclusion from their agents is a must.

Maybe this will be taken care of automatically by getting your standings reduced to negatives during the time you're declared in FW?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Fehz

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:26:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?

Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

let them only dock at their races's stations in opposing faction systems, but make that station go under attack from time to time , and exiting for a bit might be dangerous cept for in a pod.. and i know people need to dock at other stations to keep the economy going well, so I agree with fees to enter stations. You should make the fee a 1 time a day fee per station based on standing. it should pop up and you should ask for permission to dock before you even warp to it. cause if you just warp to it, they may shoot at you.. maybe i'm not understanding any of this..

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sir Hades

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:17:00 +0000

Since you have to sign up to be shot at, I would love to see this include all of high sec as well. Make it function like a giant war dec. If I am trying to kill the Gallente, I should not be able to go into their space without having the Gallente aligned players shooting at me.

It should also not matter what your standings are towards a faction in regards to joining them. I think that they will be more than glad to take on all the help they can get. Make it so they "pardon" you in exchange for your loyalty to the faction.

Do not limit the ships that we can use. Although a person might be fighting for the Amarr, if he wants to use a Matar ship, that is his choice. The players are not the navy. We would be taking up the role of a milita so it makes sense to see a mix of ships in the fray.

There should be some system to restrict the docking of ships. If you are fighting for the Matar, you should not be allowed to dock at a Cal Nav station. However, at the same time, there should be a system of neutral stations in each system.

I would like to see the ability to declare war on a faction but not be aligned with a faction. While a Caldari and a Gallente fleet are fighting, if an anarchist group wants to come in and wipe them both out, they should be able to.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ghostess

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:29:00 +0000

Edited by: Ghostess on 15/09/2007 11:30:23
Edited by: Ghostess on 15/09/2007 11:29:39
One more little detail:
NPC corps shouldn't use faction standing to decide if they let you into their stations (or whatever sanctions they put on you). Instead their corp standing should matter and be derived from how much they like the state they are in.

Example:
Caldari Navy naturally loves Caldari State and have standing 10 towards them. If you do something bad against Caldari State which makes your standing with them drop 2.4 points your standing with Caldari Navy should drop 2.4 points as well.

Example 2:
[Random corp name here] just barely accepts Caldari State and have a standing at 0.01. If you now do something bad against Caldari State which makes your standing with them drop 2.4 points your standing with [Random corp name here] should only drop 0.0024 points.

Of course you probably need to spend a lot more thought on the actual numbers but you get the idea.

CEO - UMC

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:17:00 +0000

an of course if you want to see the rest of that saying quoted at the bottom of the dev blog its in its entirety in my sig
- Thanks Hutch.
____

forum rules | mods@ccpgames.com

War is not the dreadful end to all things as mankind fears. Conflict brings balance to nature as it adapts, mutates, and transforms itself into something stronger than before. Mankind is the master of nature because we can choose those mutations on our own accord. We can accelerate the inevitable dominance of a species. Through war, we can make ourselves stronger at the time and place of our choosing. War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine.
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum, excerpt from a commencement speech to Paladin graduates of the Imperial Academy, 23215 AD

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nameless Assassin

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:59:00 +0000

What about having PvP Arenas (there was a devblog eons ago that mentioned it)? I think we really need "PvP lite" - for both noobs to train, and for players who want occasional PvP.

BTW, it could bring a new features to EVE, like stakes for fights, etc.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sfatia

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:13:00 +0000

Edited by: Sfatia on 15/09/2007 09:15:07
Factional Warfare! read so much about it still dont have an idea how it will be..

You mean i fly through space and then i see someone shooting ammar faction at a stargate or will it be more like in an special area?

the problem i see with this factional warfare is people who are not involved at all in factional warfare will they be able to interfer in a fight me vs faction or not?

thats first to be solved then we can go to ideas and stuff..
another question is say i join up one faction.. for how much time do i join them? am i able to leavem if it dont suits me..what are the conditions and so on ..
will there be hordes of npc fighting each other too and such?

As u see there are many questions need to be clarified first.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Blackback Starkiel

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:51:00 +0000

Originally by: Ghostess
I think it will be important to see effects of the war. Things like systems being taken over. Borders changing. A problem with that could be that one empire might overtake all the others. A solution to this can be that systems have to be held. The longer they are held, the harder the resistance (in form of more and harder PvE missions FW players have to take in the system) and when the resistance has won a certain ammount of "ground" the system is freed and returned to original owner. After a certain time the resistance should ease up and the system should start to become a proper part of the new empire. Attempts to take it back should be made easier somehow as the resistance helps (while it still exists).

Now IF one faction starts to grow too large anyway it could just "shatter". The larger it is, the more internal politics and after a while a new faction is formed of a constellation. This might get taken back but it will reduce the "steamroller" effect of a too large faction. It can also give players who want another ideology to follow a chance to find a faction that suits them. [...]

I like this idea, If EVE is to really be a dynamic sandbox borders must be able to change, and Empires crumble. But game-wise it's of course not a good fdea if one faction is completely wiped out -- which could happen, especially since there are more players active in certain factions than in others (a sort of meta-fact not representing the fictional relative strengths). Ghostess' idea gives a good solution to this, I think. The "resistance" represented in harder and harder objectives for the attacking side and easier tasks for the defender is a subtle way to control and limit faction take-overs -- it makes sense that as space is lost, the empire core fleets gather to strike back, and rebellion arises in occupied territory to drive off the occupants. There is no doubt this would require a lot of balancing/mission writing, but it would create a reasonably dynamic world while still allowing meta-control and stopping it from collapsing completely.

---

I think it makes sense to restrict docking at some stations in empire space if you're an "enemy of the state". But not all stations are directly owned by the respective empire, are they? Some are owned by various tribes, coorporations and so on that might be independent enough to allow docking for everyone.

Suggesion: Having a poor standing simply restricts your access to a subset of empire stations. As someone said, it makes no sense for e.g. Amarr ruling house stations to allow enemies beneath its roof. But a station owned by an independent holding company might (openly or covertly) find it good for business to "look the other way". I think this would be a simple solution to this problem, without having to create new "rebel stations" per se (even though that would be cool too!). It still makes life harder for people to hang out in enemy territory, but if your intel is good you will know what places will harbour you anyway (maybe this info could be handed out by your sides' agents, so you don't have to find out by yourself if the sentries shoot at you or not. Word of mouth is probably the main info source anyway).

A step further would be to randomly have some of these stations "rotate" every six months or so -- suddenly that station turns "loyal" (or have been pressured by the empire into being loyal) and kicks out all "enemy" coorporations/people stationed/docked there. Other stations will remain "open", and new ones will randomly "open up" to rebels to replace the ones turned loyal. If they are slow to evacuate their station after given notice, loyal navy forces will appear and siege the station -- their hideout has been found -- they have to fight their way out! Things like that would make life under the nose of the enemy feasible but not a stable life -- the way it should be, in my opinion.
.
Blackback

Holographic gallery of my artwork

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by James Duar

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:30:00 +0000

Originally by: Erotic Irony
Originally by: Guomindong

# The aggregate of loyalty points in any low-sec system gained each day is summed and system sovereignty goes to the NPC force that has aquired the most loyalty points.
# System sovereignty spawns 0.0 quality gate rats of the type that holds sovereignty, and 0.0 belt rats of the type that are enemies of the faction that holds sovereignty.
# System sovereignty turns on/off agents of the apropriate type in the area.

We have a winner, Guo hit the nail on the head while the majority of these ideas belabor more worthless grinding. This model is good, you target players to gain rep and the ability to enable options vis a view friendly agents and 0.0 spawns rather than just dumping more isk into your wallet. Atleast this system demands some planning and 0.0 like resourcefulness rather than something that can only be brute forced by 20 people.

Quoting this for support.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Cortei

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:38:00 +0000

Edited by: Cortei on 15/09/2007 07:41:04
Edited by: Cortei on 15/09/2007 07:39:42
About docking rights to stations controlled by enemy factions in allied space, with some added suggestions:

How about declaring the stations as neutral ground through something like the Galactic Geneva Convention?

The space within a bubble around the station could be neutral ground, and breaking neutral ground and attacking would have consequences. Leaving neutral ground would of course make enemy pilots able to be fired on by the system's faction ships.

It would be even more intriguing if there were specific enemy stations within allied space that would be blockaded beyond the safety bubble(for fictional reasons), and that the blockading would interdict the neutral space bubble forcing all ships to drop from warp outside the blockade. Enemies would have to run the blockade going in and out so they could warp to safety.

I'd like to suggest some form of factional currency be the rewards from whatever factional warfare missions, bounties or pvp objectives are met. The currency could either be used in faction stores for various goods/trophies, or sold to other players on the market for isk. Ideally I'd like to see an actual factional currency exchange independent of but including the isk. I would like to be able to exchange my Caldari 'Greenbacks' for Minmatarr 'Geld', or just convert the Amarr 'Crowns' into ISK.

I think it would add just a little more realism and depth to the game, while allowing all players to be able to get specific faction gear while not specifically working with that faction.

I would also like to see factional war bonds that would show an actual affect in the conflict. Hit a certain cash investment from players into that faction, and suddenly the faction is flying ships that hit harder, faster, and last longer. The coupons received from the bond wouldn't necessarily impact the faction investment, but the payback of the initial would definitely affect the faction if the investment total dropped below the 'level.'

This would allow direct player involvement in what happens in the faction conflict, and would allow those not involved in the conflict pvp-wise to still influence it. The coupons could even be in the faction currency (the earlier suggestion), which could provide and alternate method to great goods/trophies.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Erotic Irony

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:32:00 +0000

Originally by: Guomindong

# The aggregate of loyalty points in any low-sec system gained each day is summed and system sovereignty goes to the NPC force that has aquired the most loyalty points.
# System sovereignty spawns 0.0 quality gate rats of the type that holds sovereignty, and 0.0 belt rats of the type that are enemies of the faction that holds sovereignty.
# System sovereignty turns on/off agents of the apropriate type in the area.

We have a winner, Guo hit the nail on the head while the majority of these ideas belabor more worthless grinding. This model is good, you target players to gain rep and the ability to enable options vis a view friendly agents and 0.0 spawns rather than just dumping more isk into your wallet. Atleast this system demands some planning and 0.0 like resourcefulness rather than something that can only be brute forced by 20 people.
___
Support Killmail Overhaul

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nimani

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:03:00 +0000

Will there be a overall objective for each faction or will it just be a bunch of mission that doesn't lead to anything in the end?

If this is going to be about pvp and based in low sec space how will the CONCORD sec status be handled? Being KOS in all of empire just because you have killed some Amarian scums doesn't sound like a winning solution.

How are you going to enforce small gang sizes?
Spawning faction NPCs to balance gang sizes might be a solution but probably not the best.

It would be nice to see large scale "missions" with a lot of small objectives so that you feel part of the faction and if you succed or fail at your mission will have a small impact on the overall perfomance of your faction.

/Nimani

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Riley Craven

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:07:00 +0000

*Looks around for the awsomeness* Nope dont see any of it here.

Basically, this looks NOTHING like it was orginally sold to players. Faction Warfare as mentioned previously seemed more like players facing off against massive NPC fleets and actually forcing one side or the other to loose space (as in high sec empire space) meaning the face of Eve would change on a daily basis.

See thats what sold me to this game in the first place, players could actually change the landscape...

You've mentioned none of that in this implementation. I think you have screwed up so badly with POS warefare that you have pretty much given up hope on making it into what it should have been. Instead, you are changing faction warefare to give players an outlet so that warfare with small gangs is actually FEESABLE...

Further, this looks like nothing more than an excuse to get players into Low Sec, yet again. You havent managed to make LvL 5 missions worth it so my confidence in your implementation of factional warfare based on your past performance isnt exactly there. I know you guys are doing your 6:1 ratio, but none of that addresses the concerns I have outlined here.

Lastly, what really will be the point of all this? The point of war is to defeat your enemy take his space and live in bliss in it afterwards... Why do players need another excuse to engage in senseless combat when the combat we have now is so utterly broken? You say you can do this without the RP, but thats ALL this is!

Sorry to be a downer, but this just seems like another wasted feature. Missions against players Rping.... CVA and UK seemed to have done just fine without your feature...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Wolfgang Jager

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 04:20:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Ginger

This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.

So how about making one key part of the design the siege and removal/conquest of these stations within the empires? It makes sense and would make for some great fights.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ly Trang

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:34:00 +0000

I want to see big fac fleets in it like the rev2 trailer.
and fac titans with big fleet around where i can dock and recive my missions from the titan comander ;)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Grawshellar

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:15:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

The current design is strongly PvP-centric - there are PvE elements, but the focus is on small gangs of fighters running around beating the snot out of each other for king and country (or equivalent).

Errr.. what is the payoff?

It sounds like factional warfare is just a (more)consensual PVP switch at this point. With a bit of an RP background.

Order/Chaos sucked when it was first done in UO 5ish years ago. What exactly does this system have over it, other then having 4 sides instead of 2?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ghostess

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:53:00 +0000

I think it will be important to see effects of the war. Things like systems being taken over. Borders changing. A problem with that could be that one empire might overtake all the others. A solution to this can be that systems have to be held. The longer they are held, the harder the resistance (in form of more and harder PvE missions FW players have to take in the system) and when the resistance has won a certain ammount of "ground" the system is freed and returned to original owner. After a certain time the resistance should ease up and the system should start to become a proper part of the new empire. Attempts to take it back should be made easier somehow as the resistance helps (while it still exists).

Now IF one faction starts to grow too large anyway it could just "shatter". The larger it is, the more internal politics and after a while a new faction is formed of a constellation. This might get taken back but it will reduce the "steamroller" effect of a too large faction. It can also give players who want another ideology to follow a chance to find a faction that suits them.

ALSO, I think it's very important to be able to "fight the establishment". Maybe someone is an anarchist. Maybe they want power to be very localised and not formed into large factions. Maybe they want no law at all. If so they should be able to fight for 0.0; to remove a system from a faction without giving it to another. These last things will of course require a lot more work than I think is presently planned but I think it is an important part of the future of FW to make it dynamic enough to be worth it.

One thing I really really REALLY hope is that there will be AT LEAST four sides. I do not want just the two blocks. I might work for caldari but I sure as hell don't accept the Amarr's slavery or religious nonsense. I'm proud of my Gallente blood but I do business and caldari space is where all the isk are.

CEO - UMC

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nuyan Zahedi

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:01:00 +0000

Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.

Yep. I think it's the same for most 0.0 alliances, I don't see them fighting for some Empire faction. I hope there's an option to declare war on everyone aswell, which would still have some obvious disadvantages as being highly outnumbered and if you don't fight for a faction you won't be rewarded by a faction, but it should be possible.

As for docking rights. It should be possible as anyone of a faction to enter that factions high-sec systems, you'd just be a target for everyone and you wouldn't have much places to dock and hide. Which makes perfect sense to me. And there are probably "neutral" stations within 5J just about everywhere in Empire space.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Danute Glashamir

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:38:00 +0000

If you're gonna bring pirate allegiance into this then will they get access to tier 2 pirate nameds (true sansha, shadow, dark blood etc)and will the empires get their own version like Republic Tribal Navy, Amarr House, Caldari MegacorpCorp and Super-Debauched Federation stuff.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Marcus Druallis

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:32:00 +0000

Well, I highly suggest that anyone who is an enemy to a faction and enters that factions space, should be shootable by anyone in that system. Anyone.
--

Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes - Devil (mods@ccpgames.com)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by buyur ratloot

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:15:00 +0000

What mechanisms will be put in place to keep this as small gang warfare? Will there be a balance between ship tpyes/points (aka tournament) and player skillpoints.

You rulled out instances, but seems that most low-sec/0.0 fighting is boring because one side or the other is always running from because fights aren't fair. How is FW going to be any different.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Dalyn Arathon

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:04:00 +0000

Edited by: Dalyn Arathon on 14/09/2007 23:06:11
One of the immediate concerns that many from my own alliance have raised (usually immediately upon reading the new dev blog) is perhaps one of semantics, but also a rather important semantic point:

Will there be a way to fight against a faction without fighting for another one? Indeed, the entire language of factional warfare seems to be couched around fighting for a faction, instead of fighting against one.

It is very often stated (strangely enough, including in the dev blog under consideration ;-)) that Eve is a sandbox which the players are allowed to shape as they see fit, but it seems that this is a type of sand poured exclusively for those who want to play for the establishment, by the accepted rules of our imaginary society.

Will there be a method by which those of us who do not play by the rules of the establishment (aka, take sides or identify with one of the Empire nation-states of New Eden), be able to participate against said establishment? Will there be a place in factional warfare for revolutionaries, pirates, privateers, anarchists, unscrupulous mercenaries, etc?

I think that it is very important that CCP recognizes that there are a significant number of players who would like to participate in factional warfare without taking a side, and I hope that there is room for us in this wonderful new play area that you are designing.

Thanks :-).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Gestation

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:25:00 +0000

Originally by: XiticiX
Edited by: XiticiX on 14/09/2007 18:59:35
It sounds very intriging, to say the least.
I expect the developers should introduce it gradually, expanding upon the idea through multiple patches - see the direction it is taking, tweaking it, and adding content as the idea solidifies into something worthy.

I see Factional Warfare (FW) starting off as the basic ability to attack those players that choose to take part in FW in low-sec. A simple solution that allows for more small gang PVP in low-sec.

That said, I would like to eventually see the EVE universe change dynamically because of FW.
This can be accomplished many ways, some of which previous posters have mentioned.

An idea I had is to use the already implemented system of sovereignty. As wars are won/lost, sovereignty of that system is lost/gained. This should NOT be POS-spamming, but rather built around specific objectives of the war. A "Mission" could be broken down into smaller segments, satisfying the need for smaller gang warfare. These objectives could be small things such as taking out a sentry gun, or a small gang of enemies.

The objectives themselves would be a small part of a large-scale plan of the Faction you are fighting for. This would require a lot of scripting, somewhat in the way current storyline missions are built, but on a grander scale. Objectives - once completed by players - could have an affect on that particular missions' status as far as it's progression towards "completion" in concerned. When a missions has achieved success, that may mean that soverignty in the system is achieved. This will also rally the players to partake in FW if they want to continue to use the station or system for missioning/mining/carebear-type stuff, as for every offensive mission, there will be an opposing defensive mission for the other Faction.

This is a nice mix of PVP/PVE that Factional Warfare could accomodate for quite nicely, I believe. Getting the mission runners and the pure PVP players working together towards a common goal could be what Factional Warfare is about.

I'm very much looking forward to Faction Warfare though - whatever form it may take. Small-gang PVP is what EVE is currently lacking in, and any attempt made to bring that back to the game would be well-received I'm sure.

this

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Mysterlee

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:24:00 +0000

Not sure if this has been said already but how will this affect agent standings? Say I've been working for a Gallente agent and my corp decides to align with Caldari, would this end up ruining my standings with the Gallente I've worked so hard for and result in me losing my agents?

This system has the potential to tear corporations apart if you allow this to happen and will probably cause a large drop in subscriptions. I wouldn't want to lose my agents because my corp has aligned with an opposing faction but I also wouldn't want to be forced to leave my corp to avoid this because of a badly implemented feature.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by The Cosmopolite

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:21:00 +0000

The approach in the blog looks good so far as it goes. I also agree with much that Nuyan said but with one caveat on the issue of docking.

Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.

On the controversial subject of docking rights. I'm not surprised this has reared its head but I'm not going to outright oppose it.

What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.

My view is that if you want to make it difficult to impossible for an enemy of a faction to operate in a faction's region in one way then you have to offer them ways to operate that are in keeping with their standings to that faction. In other words, if you want to restrict them from doing certain things in the territory of an enemy faction then make it possible for them to do things that loyalists of that faction cannot do.

Restrict their ability to use a market in an empire? Then give them a black market. A real functioning black market which loyalists cannot access.

Restrict their ability to dock in law-abiding stations in an empire? Then give them access to criminal and rebel stations in that empire. Restrict access to loyalists in some manner. Use deadspace and/or have stations shift but alway locatable by those friendly to them.

Just two ideas and by no means perfect or doable on the timescales envisioned. But simply restricting people without in some other way enabling them will not make factional warfare fun for that many people.

Maybe those people who want to have docking rights restricted also want a decent quid pro quo for that in gameplay terms. Really, any kind of restriction has to be balanced by some kind of countering ability.

Cosmo

The Star Fraction Communications Portal

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Entarel Helfir

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:08:00 +0000

Just a suggestion in between, if you make negative standings count, you should also make _positive_ standings count, and I don't mean only LP stores or stuff like that.

Imagine the following scenario for example :

Player A has high Minnie standing / low Amarr standing (yay, a terrorist)
Player B has high Amarr standing / low Minnie standing (yay, a religous maniac slaver)

Player A is drifting around in Minnie space and gets attacked by Player B. Since the Navy doesn't like that, it dispatches a few (NPC) ships to help out Player A, similar to Concord.

Of course this needs to be balanced, heck, the supporting ships don't even need to be very powerful, it just would make standings a lot more meaningful, and would provide an awesome immersive environment, even if those ships are mere paper-tigers and blown to dust easily.

Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Goumindong

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:55:00 +0000

O.K.

Design Goals

Rewards

Consequences

Dynamics

Implementation

Players now have incentive to shoot each other, opposing factions rats, and low-sec space changes dynamically while giving faction standing gains and loyalty points which can be redeemed for high quality equipment.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kruel

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:52:00 +0000

Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
I have one request:

If you are going to be able to fight for a faction, please, please, please allow for some way to prove to said faction that players with deep negative standing have the potential to be allies and not enemies. The destruction of the standings system is not necessarily my request, but we need more ways to make amends for past "transgressions."

Indeed. Pirates in the old days would often be offered official "pardons". It usually only happened once though. If they went back to their pirating ways they would sometimes be able to get another pardon, but usually one chance was all.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kruel

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:49:00 +0000

I don't like the idea of having to fly race-specific ships if we're the ones buying them. If the factions want us to fly their ships then they better hand em over and supply the mods too! Otherwise, let us fly what we want.

Also, I'd really like to see a global 'flag' which would allow us to shoot at members of the enemy faction at all times.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Frug

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:48:00 +0000

My one concern is that it's currently impossible (as far as I know) to repair standings with a faction once they've fallen below an effective -2 (after diplomacy and related skills are maxed). I don't think it should be easy to flip flop factions willy nilly, but when I started eve I didn't know who was who, and I started fighting for my academy. This mainly applies to pirate factions. I like them and have been struggling lately to prevent them from hating me forever, but that's not possible now with all of them. For me sansha, guirista and angel cartel all want my head real bad. Not that i blame them. But what if I really -really- want to apologize? And what about other players who are in the hole worse than me?

Also, I think that if you work for pirates they should not attack you in their space. :P

- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - -
If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO
BOOO!! - Ductoris
Neat look what I found - Kreul
Hey, my marbles

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Emperor D'Hoffryn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:39:00 +0000

Its going to be difficult to have factional warfare really mean something and have an affect while not negatively effecting those who want no part in it.

For example, few months after its released, if I make an emergency run to empire for supplies for my 0.0 based corp, and get my hauler full of POS fuel pwned in Rens because I have bad minnie standing due to amarr missions I ran 2 years ago, I shall be very put out.

Originally by: Snuggly
It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Viashivan

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:27:00 +0000

An idea I had, could be to deny certain individuals, corps or alliances docking rights by spending LP?
An individual may donate his LP to his corp. The member donating the LP should be in the corp he is donatig to for a number of time, to prevent corp hopping an selling of LP. That corp has the possibility to expel a certain number of people from station of the npc-corp (not faction) by spending an amount of LP, or other rewards or a combination of both? This denial of docking rights is only for a certain period of time, in order not to abuse the mechanic.

The corp affected gets a message from the npc-corp, similar to a declaration of war. To nullify that announcement the affected corp may spend LP as well to prevent this event form happening.

The advantages from that are:
- that way player have more influence on whats happening to their space.
- 0.0 NPC region could easily participate in the initial release as well
- more resistance to change in certain regions

Via

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Seringol

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:26:00 +0000

After reading this topic, Im looking forward to seeing FW come to life.

Heres my opinions-
If I am going to be spending time doing this, I would like to see the equivalent of LP rewards, if not better.

Restricting someone to a faction's ships ( not necessarily their characters factions ships ) is a very fair and valid thing to do. If someone continues to want to fly a Raven when flying for Gallente, they should have some sort of disadvantage or loss because of it. Half of rewards may be too much, but it does add up and will make someone think twice.

Give people a one time choice to have all their factional standings wiped- they may lose access to a jumpclone or something else for a while, but hey- No benefits without a disadvantage, and no one is forcing you to wipe your standings.

The players base race shouldnt matter as much as who they want to fight for, and the actions they do.
If the character is Caldari and flies Amarr ships, for Amarr Faction, they should not be any different than an Amarr pilot flying for Amarr.

Oh, and smaller T2 ships would be nice as options, instead of Faction BS's. Balancing the relative LP-equivalent costs will be fun, though.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Demoiselle Gebrier

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:24:00 +0000

Edited by: Demoiselle Gebrier on 14/09/2007 20:24:49
...

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sphynx Stormlord

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:18:00 +0000

I am very keen for there to be more than just two sides.

I want to be fighting (as a gallente) primarily the caldari. I dont realy care how many slaves the amarr have, I just want to blow up caldari.

I would like to see this reflected in both missions (too many missions are against both factions at once), and in comming PVP stuff.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kweel Nakashyn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:10:00 +0000

Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda
I have one request:

If you are going to be able to fight for a faction, please, please, please allow for some way to prove to said faction that players with deep negative standing have the potential to be allies and not enemies. The destruction of the standings system is not necessarily my request, but we need more ways to make amends for past "transgressions."

He's true. i'd like another scifi game named X3 RTunion, and X2 the Threat. The problem with this game is once your are an ennemy of a faction, you can't repair it. Please allow players to repair it. For example : If your standing is < -5 to a faction, an ammarr agent : "deny your allegiance to Minmatars !". If the player choose yes, they get -2.5 to Minnie's status but +5 to Amarr for example. Same with pirates.
2isk

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kyoko Sakoda

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:55:00 +0000

I have one request:

If you are going to be able to fight for a faction, please, please, please allow for some way to prove to said faction that players with deep negative standing have the potential to be allies and not enemies. The destruction of the standings system is not necessarily my request, but we need more ways to make amends for past "transgressions."

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kweel Nakashyn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:52:00 +0000

Someone said "how about letting low or -10 dock but deny services" (the guy spoke about CONCORD and the Yulan convetion).
I'd say yes, it's a damn nice idea. I wish i had it :) Because people can still move their assets, so they are not so blocked/grinded by this situation. If they can't repair/clone, buy things on market, they will die if they stay.
Pure pk's with SS -10 can't go to the Empire, I don't see the problem here. They also can't dock.

Maybe only the market servce should not be disabled. It can be activated at distance, so it's not really easy to stop players to do so. Plus it involves player's free will to buy things here and there. Breaking the "free movements of goods and persons" is not really a good thing for the markets.

I found this logical.
2isk

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by britchie

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:38:00 +0000

It looks good to me.

Does anyone know how to get my name capitalized?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nuyan Zahedi

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:34:00 +0000

Edited by: Nuyan Zahedi on 14/09/2007 19:36:49
#5 Involve 0.0 player alliances into Factional Warfare. Perhaps something for the future as I saw Ginger posting that first version of Factional Warfare will only be for the 4 major factions. But in the end it should be possible to have a player alliance declare war on other npc factions.

#6 Destructable stations. One day there'll have to be a mechanic that allows destruction of stations, otherwise whole 0.0 will fill up with them for no reason. Problem however it's a bit harsh for a player to loose all his assets because he's away for a week and the station where he got his goodies gathered got blown up. And that is perhaps a bit too painfull, the station wreck should have the players hangar in space floating intact or something like that.

Overall I think Factional Warfare will be very exciting and it has a lot of possibilites. It could turn Eve in one big dynamic world where fights can be everywhere, while right now it's two worlds with dynamic 0.0 (that can feel a bit pointless without a RP cause like Stavros discussed with Ovour on Eve-Tv) on one side and the static Empire world on the other side. At the same time Empire space would stay a not too harsh zone for the more peaceful pilots, where players can do missions without risking their ship on other players, where miners can mine their ass off and where traders can get rich by not choosing sides and trade between hostile factions.

I hope it'll be a bit more than some agents giving missions with bigger standing-hits and a few low-sec systems turned into a battlefield. I hope the above points will be taken into consideration and I think that it really is time to add some real consequences to standings, I don't think it's a that big problem if a player has trouble to get through hostile faction systems, I think that's the point of having hostile factions and systems. Also I think you add some of the ideas I've written above like being able as a neutral to shoot at someone who's hostile to the faction of the system they're in, then you'll see a lot more result and small-scale warfare than just having missions for some shiny rewards.

One big issue I think is how big will the player influence be? For afaik there are a lot more caldari pilots than of any other race and that shouldn't end up in caldari taking other systems quickly, but at the same time it'd feel a bit meaningless if nothing besides ships being blown up ever happens. I think the wars between the factions would be very stalemate with their massive armies, a lot more than in the 0.0 wars which can already be a bit stalemate. But there should be a few systems / planets switching sovereignty every two months and if that happens (and it should), it might be a bit hard to give players the feeling they really contributed to that. I think it'll be quite a challenge for CCP to implement and afterwards moderate this.

The only problem you'll keep having is people metagaming, using alts to do things they can't do on their main, using alts to spy around without consequences, but I'm afraid that's a problem you can't do much about.

Quote:
One note -- Ginger, you say in your blog that it will allow participation on a corporate or individual level, but what about on an alliance level? This would seem kind of imperative for entities like the CVA, Electus Matari, the Acheron Federation, and the Apex Conglomerate. I can certainly see how this could have been an oversight, but it's something that definitely needs to get addressed.

Heheh. Imagine two corporations inside an alliance fighting eachother in Factional Warfare.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Nuyan Zahedi

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:33:00 +0000

Want to have thoughts and ideas? You'll get them.

#1 As Tharrn mentioned docking is a big issue. Docking/undocking games are an annoying form of combat you see a lot in Empire. It annoyed me quite a lot to have an anarchist alliance as the Star Fraction basing out in an Amarr station as Emperor Family Station in Amarr to fight amarr loyalists like me in PIE. Same for all our other foes. It's understandable from a game point of view, but I hope and expect Factional Warfare will do something about it. I think it makes a lot of sense to not being able to dock in a station of a corporation/faction you've negative standings for. And I assume you'd have negative Amarr standings quickly when you join the Minmattar cause when Factional Warfare is out.

#2 Faction-influence on the market. I think it's already a bit annoying that it's hard to see who's selling and buying, that you can't avoid selling your goodies to your enemies or vice-versa. I hope CCP will implement something for this in Factional Warfare. An extra button that you don't want to sell towards people that have negative standings towards your faction/corporation or someone that is at war. Let stuff you can't buy because the sellers don't want you to appear in orange-red or something. Perhaps even let the station-owner (which could be a npc faction, but perhaps a 0.0 alliance too) enforce it, so there isn't stuff that can be sold to foes of the station-owner. Let trading for someone that has a history of fighting for the Federation be totally impossible in Caldari space.

#3 Faction Security Rating. What about adding something like this next to the standings. Some kind of security rating, but then for a faction. As a neutral you can shoot at people with -9 sec in high-sec without Concord being ****ed off, what about having the same but then faction-related. You'd still be able to travel through these hostile high-sec systems, I'd only be rather dangerous. It should be easy enough to see if a player is attackable or not, having to browse through the players' standings would take a bit too much time, so that's why some kind of faction security rating towards the holder of the systems souverinity would be awesome.

#4 Having npc navies patrolling systems and jumping through stargates. I think Eve currently sometimes already feels a bit empty and "dead", especially for a newcomer. You've rats in belts/gates, there is often some patrolling at stargates and there is ofcourse some trader npc's flying from station to station inside a system. But for as far as I know npc's actually don't use stargates.

Also, people currently have no idea of the might of the factions. How much ships does the Amarr Navy have? Do they indeed have a secret cyno-network through most of their systems? My interpretation is that they're huge powers and currently unbeatable for any of the player (pod-pilot) alliances. I think the Amarr Navy could remove BoB if they want to, but know that pod-pilot alliances are rather hard to fight and the losses would be too high compared to what they'd gain. The same for other non-player factions. That's how I look at it and I'd love to see more of it ingame. Let the Amarr Navy show off with a few dreadnaughts or titans every now and then. Aurora lacked numbers for it. Let it be scripted npc's. Let there be patrols of fleets going through their systems. Let them be killable and lootable like rats are (for standing-hits of course). Let them engage pirates and others with negative standings/sec-rate.

A fleet of 50 Amarr vessels moving around. Doesn't matter if it's CVA or just npc's, it'd be an awesome sight and it's something new players don't see often currently.

(Seems I'm needing two posts)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Kweel Nakashyn

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:19:00 +0000

Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 14/09/2007 19:23:21
I'll try to explain how I saw "Factional Warfare" from my pure imagination (because, even if I hear of it everywhere in every dev's mouth, we still doesn't know clearly how it would be implemented).

So I imagined this system, and was quite happy with this idea. NOte, it is the military version of factional warfare. But things can be done for markets, research, and other type of gameplay.
- There is some station named "bases" and "capitals", where a new button is next to the mission button.
- You click on it. On a capital stations, things are a little special. Let's start with simple bases. A new screen pop up, it's the mission and form up screen. Here people forms groups to enter a mission. Typically "go there and kill this gang".
- When a mission is chosen and a group is complete, every pilot pay to jumpclone to the same base station where the action is told.
- When a pilot jumpclone, he have to buy a ship. Each faction have ships, fit and faction equipement ready for you to pay for (a small fee of what are the player's price usually, and even a smallest fee if players have a good standing toward the faction).
- Mission occurs, pvp, empire or not, etc. VS another group of players that the faction is at war with choosed a mirror mission.
- Mission finish, bravo, reward.

A few more things :
- on bases you can jumpclone from bases to bases in the same region.
- on capital you can jumpclone from capitals to capital in the whole universe.
- you can try to escape with your faction equipement. You'll get a -5 toward this faction until you give back your equipement.
- there is a system of lieutenants, general, etc based on what the player acheive, their standing, and their victories. Highest graded get phat loot, low grade get what remains.
- types of rewards : "keep your ship", "money", "lp", "standing", "modules", "free research slot", whatever. Of course, you'll get more reward if your alive.
- types of mission : "kill that gang", "put/remove a tower", "kill this criminal", "escort this freighter", "spy this titan", etc. I guess CCP have a lot of ideas there. On "kill this criminal" : anywho have a standing of -2 toward a faction can have a group of players as a mission decided by the faction. The "funny" thing about this is the criminal don't know. And yes, concord is a faction.
- there'll be a giant killboard. Player's are evaluated by the ELO system, so you'll ever know what your group is made of and what to put against them. It's a lot of balancing, but if things are really been great, it is awesome.
- you can capture ennemies's bases (I just don't know how, but you could). You have to capture all bases to start to be able to attack a capital.
- quick ideas for the market : "move all these things from Jita, you'll have 10b in a special wallet to buy things there. Put this here".

That's how my imagination told me how it would be. So don't blame me, it's only imagination. I am quite happy with this. But I still don't know what CCP want FW to be...

Anyway, gl for rev3 guys. I prefer it stays out of it (even if I would want... let's wait for the finished thing, I think it'll be better, for us and esp for you).
2isk

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Amira Silvermist

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:14:00 +0000

Edited by: Amira Silvermist on 14/09/2007 19:15:50
I hope this:

Quote:
You will not need to leave your corporation to join factional warfare. Individuals as well as corporations can join the cause.

doesn't mean that your corp has to leave your alliance to participate...
Edit: Essentially Svetlana's concern above.

Oh, and I hope that the rewards include things as ranks and medals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Svetlana Scarlet

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:11:00 +0000

One note -- Ginger, you say in your blog that it will allow participation on a corporate or individual level, but what about on an alliance level? This would seem kind of imperative for entities like the CVA, Electus Matari, the Acheron Federation, and the Apex Conglomerate. I can certainly see how this could have been an oversight, but it's something that definitely needs to get addressed.
--
CAPT Svetlana Scarlet
CAIN Chief of Diplomatic Staff

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Imperius Blackheart

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:08:00 +0000

Got a question for you, when I used to mission ***** none stop it had a massively negative effect on my gallente standing, I'm currently in a position that if I do many more missions for the Caldari against the Gallente i'm not gonna have a easy time of it in Gallente space. That situation is kinda impossible for me to get myself into because being a Mercenary I have to be able to fight wherever in Eve a customer requests it, so my simple solution has been to pretty much quit running missions apart from the odd one or two here and there.

When factional warfare starts I might have a renewed interest, especially for the medals which sound cool, and if KIA/TNT are not on contract i'll probably try to take part. But i'm concerned about my reputation... you say fighting for one side will have a massive impact on your reputation? Will this be a situation that realisticly I won't be able to recover from for a very long period of time grinding low level missions to get a decent standing back again? Or next to impossible because I won't be able to use any Gallente agents (I don't think I can now actually) or will there be a easy way out for those who partisipate? Perhaps after the end of the war your reputation being returned to a suitable level?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Savage Manticore

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:58:00 +0000

The thing Im most interested to know is how you intend to encourage small gang fights in FW while discouraging giant blobfests. Not saying that large fleet battles shouldnt be part of FW, but maybe they should be more of a capstone at the end of several smaller engagements.

Youve stated that FW will be freeform, but will there be any mechanics or any sort of factors that encourage smaller engagements?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by XiticiX

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:55:00 +0000

It sounds very intriging, to say the least.
I expect the developers should introduce it gradually, expanding upon the idea through multiple patches - see the direction it is taking, tweaking it, and adding content as the idea solidifies into something worthy.

I see Factional Warfare (FW) starting off as the basic ability to attack those players that choose to take part in FW in low-sec. A simple solution that allows for more small gang PVP in low-sec.

That said, I would like to eventually see the EVE universe change dynamically because of FW.
This can be accomplished many ways, some of which previous posters have mentioned.

An idea I had is to use the already implemented system of sovereignty. As wars are won/lost, sovereignty of that system is lost/gained. This should NOT be POS-spamming, but rather built around specific objectives of the war. A "Mission" could be broken down into smaller segments, satisfying the need for smaller gang warfare. These objectives could be small things such as taking out a sentry gun, or a small gang of enemies.
The objectives themselves would be a small part of a large-scale plan of the Faction you are fighting for. This would require a lot of scripting, somewhat in the way current storyline missions are built, but on a grander scale. Objectives - once completed by players - could have an affect on that particular missions' status as far as it's progression towards "completion" in concerned. When a missions has achieved success, that may mean that soverignty in the system is achieved. This will also rally the players to partake in FW if they want to continue to use the station or system for missioning/mining/carebear-type stuff, as for every offensive mission, there will be an opposing defensive mission for the other Faction.
I'm very much looking forward to Faction Warfare though - whatever form it may take. Small-gang PVP is what EVE is currently lacking in, and any attempt made to bring that back to the game would be well-received I'm sure.

This is my sig. Do you like it?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Macmuelli

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:54:00 +0000

Edited by: Macmuelli on 14/09/2007 18:55:32
In factional warfare it woud be nice if it woud be possible to build up a base for the faction i work for.

this base should be exist as long other factional warfare involed players destroy it.

Maxmimal 1-2 base each constellation

Pa exampe.

Gallente infiltration.

Part I

Gallente need to bring in an bae module which can be anchored in space on a bm the agent gives u.
Your work is it to bring it safty to this bm.
Means u had to kill multiple spawnbs if u enter the terretory of the enemie faction.
+ U had to protect the anchoring base for a XXX time.

Part 2

The base is builded and u have the chance to jump to it via an builded jump gate.
U had to bring an " base" commander safed to this base.
Ppls try to destroy it and u had to protect it all the time.
From this base manager u get missions against the faction.

Which coud be attacking convoys in front of stations.
Attacking stations which mean that Faciltys cannot be used for a... of time.
This woud for sure let ppls think about if they will not do anything against it.( what about if stations where many ppls have there production line are useless for 24/ 48 hrs.)
or ppl s need to repair the station then befoire it s getting used again. " war is eypensive so...

Part 3

Build up a base shipyard. u need to bring mins/ equip to such a base. If it s completed after a ... time the shipyard produce ships. This kind of ships should be automaticly drone units which scouting belts and attacking players.
Concord is an an politcal conflict and cant take position against it. Players had to rule it.

Part 4

Infiltration s of in system stations via spy agents. U have a chance getting stuff out of the stations ( not from players) and can set docking fees if u have infiltrate a station.

Part 5

Capital fights against your enemie faction.

What i woud like to see from pirate factions is that they could be the only chance in future to make 0.5 systems upon there activity to 0.4. ... 0.6 - > 0.5 etc.
If nobody do something against it we will all life in some "years" -> month into 0.0. or lo sec.

breg mac

Ps: u should e also have the chance to change the sides in factonal warfare. Means u coud be contacted by an enemie agent which offering u a mission. This will raise up your enemie- standing or bring it directly to 0.

"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Malachon Draco

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:45:00 +0000

Edited by: Malachon Draco on 14/09/2007 18:45:38
I am so going to laugh when the faction fighters in lowsec get ripped to shreds by a pirate in his mothership...

Maybe its because I've lived in 0.0 after being ingame 3 months and never really returning to Empire, but do people really care about faction warfare?

Anyway, one suggestion. The faction warfare reminds me a lot of how flagging went in SWG. Learning from the mistakes there, if you want to make faction warfare meaningful, you need 2 things.

1. Shiny rewards
2. Meaningful choices.

By shiny rewards I mean, that if people really choose a side, they need to be able to earn the shinyest toys. I think that if for example CVA aligns itself fully with the Amarr Empire, they should be able to get Imperial Apocs. Likewise, if Ushra'Khan aligns with the Minmatar Republic, they need to be able to earn Fleet Tempests and even Tribal Tempests. Should not be easy or cheap, but it should be inline with how valuable the ships are. The biggest mistake SWG made was that at the start the faction armor was pathetically poor quality and hideously expensive. So what you got was 2 sides in identical 'generic' composite armor.

2. Meaningful choices.
Also if you want faction warfare, everyone aligned with Minmatar should be flying a Minmatar ship. Everyone aligned with Amarr should be flying an Amarr ship. Then you get real faction warfare. And choices should be practically permanent. Also no switching sides, no choosing the easy route.

It would IMO be the death of factional warfare if you'd see a fleet of CVA squaring off against Ushra'Khan with a third of the CVA in Megathrons, 15% in Rokhs and 15% in Tempests, vs a UK fleet in 30% megathrons, 20% rokhs and 10% apocalypses. Make the choices tough, and make people stick to them.

------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Golden Rule: Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ki Shodan

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:39:00 +0000

So due to doing Amarr Cosmos stuff first, I am screwed with the Minmatar Cosmos? (Besides getting standing to minmatar back up?)
Since I have to fight of Minmatar Roleplayers, when entering minmatar space, in addition to low sec piracy?

Or do I have to sign up for factional warefare to be hunted by the enemy factions? (And therefore can avoid this additional harrasment?)
--

Evemail me, if my name is used as guarantor!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Sophia Eve

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:29:00 +0000

Factional Warfare is definitely sounding nice, but I'm worried about what kind of standings prerequisites are going to be necessary, especially for veteran players who already have factional standings pretty well stuck the way they are. What about players who, by way of where their corporation operates, ended up raising their standings with the enemies of their native race. Are they forced to fight for their "enemies"?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Alora Venoda

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:26:00 +0000

i can see this system working as follows:

since it will involve PvP and empire space, anyone participating should have some kind of flag that will act similar to the current wardec mechanics. basically, it means you are "enlisted" by that particular faction, and shooting a faction warfare opponent will not invoke CONCORD or change your sec status. and the flag should be a global thing, not related to specific objectives and you could be vulnerable from enemy players at any time. and it will also have a 24 hour transition period like with normal wardecs.

since the objectives will be in publically accessible space, there could be problems with "neutral" or "civilian" players interfering with faction-based combat objectives. i think the most reasonable solution would be treat it exactly like a wardec in that regard. non-aligned players would be treated the same as a 3rd party between 2 warring corps/alliances. but should they be allowed to attack the NPC navy ships when not flagged for factional warfare? or maybe in that case, doing so could give a temp-flag similar to current corp-warfare assisting mechanics.

objectives will be publically available "missions" that spawn/despawn in the same way that exploration sites and encounters do. there will be some kind of bulliten board for these objectives, possibly from agents. regardless of how objective info is provided, the availability of the intel should be based on standings. but unlike missions, there will be no "mission offers" but rather you just go complete the objective and receive credit for doing it, similar to rat bounties and triggered events.

some objectives can be counter-objectives to prevent the enemy from succeeding. its war, so only one side "wins". it could be things like "don't let them destroy X ships/structures" or "don't let them steal X loot". or it could even be something that spans multiple systems, such as courier missions and the enemy tries to destroy or even steal the courier package.

rewards, in addition to pure loot from the objective itself, will include standings boosts, ISK payouts, or maybe even some new type of loyalty points. of course, the PvP factor is so unpredictable that the risk/rewards may need to be determined simply by "who shows up to the party"... with small variants based on static PvE elements of the objectives.

to prevent this system from circumventing the existing faction standings system, a second type of standings may be used. basically, we want to prevent the scenario where a few faction warfare gang missions replaces many storyline agent missions. if they used the same standings systems, then either the objectives would need to be VERY difficult or yield very small standings increases. and since we want this to appeal to small gangs and solo players, they should not be super difficult.

last but not least, factional warfare should have some kind of impact on the markets too... maybe being an enemy of the faction that owns a given station could prevent you from doing business there, or add lots of taxes/fees.

Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless.

Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Elseer Radak

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:09:00 +0000

Hi All,

This is an interesting idea but I have concern here. IT seems to me that each racial area provides it's own salvage goods and invention centric goods. With both Salvage and Invention goods (Data interfaces), you really need all four races *liking you* to provide an adequate supply of t2 goods in the empire.

If factional warfare takes off, How will it effect the dispersion of low sec / null sec only salvage parts into the eve wide ecomonmy? Also will factional standing impact your research agents? IF so, I foresee a potential economic impact. Racial types effect what t2 items can be Invented http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/invention.php will various t2 bits become more scarce outside of racial space and their immediate ally (e.g. t2 mining crystals become allot or more expense and scare in Gallette/Minmater space while t2 drones become more expensive/scarce in Amarr and Caldari Space?

Lastly, how will factional standing impact other game play issues like increased tax on items from factions that dislike you and if docking rights or system use rights are limited, folks could not access goods bought contracts in Jita, Ours or Amarr/Tash-Murken prime?

I'm mostly concerned that that this may be an unintended consequence of factional warfare and would like to hear from the devs that this has been considered and either discounted or factored into Eve's economics and the ship balance this could alter.

Thinking of that, however, it might be interesting to have player driven "pipelines" spring up to supply these material (at a markup). That would be really cool but still represents a possible negative economic impact that would be less fun.

Elseer R.

--

Reality: A consensual experience

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Durente Galaica

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:05:00 +0000

I'm for a more proactive faction warfare. Allow me to explain:

If faction warfare comes into existence, it would likely come as a result from the weakening of Concord.

1) Dissolve CONCORD from its police duties.
2) Continue buff to Navies. However, the navy of each faction takes on the roll CONCORD did before factional warfare.
-Navy ships will still be at randomly different gates through their empire.
-If a person enters an area with low faction standing and avoids the NPC navies, he'll still be able to traverse the enemy territory. However, as the new local police will consider him outlaw, he'll also be responsible for avoiding PC players. As what police would warp in to save an outlaw?
-Security status dynamically changes depending on what territory you enter, as a relation to your standings.

This would be a simple and elegant solution to Factional Warfare. All that is required is to game design the exact cut off points for standings, write a back story, and perhaps introduce it through interactive player means rather than simply next patch everything becomes different.

In fact, this was what I was expecting when I first joined game and I was afraid to go into Minmatar space for that same reason.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Ellaine TashMurkon

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:58:00 +0000

Pretty please avoid making great good versus evil war (amarr+caldari vs minmatar+gallente).
Let it have more political complexity, with NPC corporation-level conflicts inside factions, occasional conflicts with "friendly" faction corps and so on and so on. In Eve background, NPC corps always had shareholders and competitors, lets use this information so we can choose to fight in wars more like in Cyberpunk then in Middlearth :) Naturally, people working for navy/fleet or goverment corps, and all other - time to time, would still take part in the great national war.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by TJ17

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:57:00 +0000

it would be nice to see factional warfare more then just missions/cosmos as in other empires can take over others station like gallante taking caldari stations and so on. it should be based on how many people do the factional warefare in order for station change or something other then a boring pos siege deal you should also expand it to high sec aswell since it is faction vs faction and not just a battle for low sec.

but im looking too see how this turns out but anyway take ur time and do it right.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Jezala

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:54:00 +0000

So what happens when we have a situation where the Amarr empire is kicking the snot out of the Minmitar Republic and defeating them at every engagement? How is the progress of the war manifested in the universe? What happens when one faction "wins" over the others?

I guess what I'm really asking is: does the outcomes of the factional warfare fights result in meaningful change of the EVE universe or is it just some prearranged fights that impacts your faction standing?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tsumik

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:36:00 +0000

I agree I would really like to see more use of factional ships (which I think I read before somewhere they'll be fixed). And I really think there should be something that sort of pushes people to use ships that coralate to their respective races. Ie. fighting for the Amarr should pushs you or perhaps not penalize you from flying other race ships.

I also think besides the small gang battles, the parts that really get me about historacal games is large scale battles happening and being a small part of that battle. And nothing so grand as "if I don't complete this objective the rest of the fleet won't be able to do their parts" but more like "if I can take out this outpost battery the fleet can have a slight edge fighting in this system" I think alot of games make the play so super heroic that they alone determine the way the battle goes. It would be fun if there was big push battles like into a system and you were put into various fronts/objectives by some sort of factional fleet commander. And the faster you complete your small objective the faster someone else in the same battle can complete their part.

It would be also cool to be part of "covert/black ops" type missions where the faction lets you borrow special modules or ships for just that mission and then they take it back afterwards. This would potentially give some more coolness to factional warfare by allowing you to use ships/modules that are only in factional warfare.

Otherwise good job guys look forward to it!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Helison

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:24:00 +0000

Some random thoughts:

*) About stations: It has to be possible that NPC-stations are taken over by other NPC-factions. In addition to this Id like to see Interbus implemented first. Interbus could move all your goods (and your corp goods including worthy BPOs) to a friendly station, if the station changes the owner.

*) While activly fighting for a faction, it should be NOT possible to use the hostile stations. But after end of the fighting it should be possible to dock again within 2-4 weeks.

*) Standings: It should be possible to regain all your lost standings and fight for the opposing faction, but it should be quite difficult to really change the faction. But it should be "quite" easy to regain as much standing to be able to travel again in the regions of the former enemy.

*) Factional warfare has to be interesting also for veterans!

*) It should NOT be rewarding to bring 300+ players to win an objective. This could also be achieved more easily if you provide many but small objectives instead of single, bigger ones.

*) Logistical ops are a must. "Hey this viator is supplying the enemy with ammunition! Shoot it!"

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Greyscale

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:22:00 +0000

Originally by: Tempest Kane
Edited by: Tempest Kane on 14/09/2007 17:10:59
Will factional low sec stations be conqurable by a corporation or alliance who decides to support/fight for an opposed faction of said station owning faction?

If so i see a strong use and incentive for 0.0 groups to take part and secure low-sec hub points for logistical reasons + cyno nets to empire useing the pos/portaling system.

I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.

Its time for the sandbox to expand inwards.

The initial release is definitely not intended as a tool to give 0.0 Alliances more power/influence in lowsec. Maybe at some point in the future Alliances will be able to attack the Empires directly, but for now this isn't part of the game plan.

Originally by: Rainhailer
Would there be any chance of getting factions (such as Mordus and the Jovians) to take part, and if they get enough player support, maybe carve out sovereignty for themselves in some other faction's space?

Also, will there be any possibility of 0.0 pirate factions getting involved and taking space from the empire factions?

I'm asking because I remember reading in a previous devblog that system security status could be altered, and I think I saw that borders could change.

Plus I'd love to fight for the Jovians or Mordus, pwn some Caldaris =)

The plan is definitely to bring at least some 0.0 factions into the fold in future, although this won't be part of the initial release. Jove, though? Unlikely.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Adhar Khorin

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:22:00 +0000

Has there been any consideration toward allowing a FW pilot to "call in support" from the faction navy to defend sovereign space?

The amount of support (ie, NPC naval vessels) that you'd be able to call in would depend on your standing, and could also cost standing and/or LP to (literally) call in the favor. It would also introduce one hell of an element of surprise when you're defending your own turf. Invaders see small gang, engage said gang, and then NPC navy shows up to the party.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Si Raven

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:17:00 +0000

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.

It sounds like you havent fully thought through all the long tem implications yet so its good that FWs been delayed. If an enemy faction is allowing "privateers" to operate out of its stations, this is going to cause friction with the host faction. Either theyre going to ignore, destroy or capture this wretched hive of scum and villainy! Eventually, this will escalate into an all out hot war. Are you planning for 2-3 years down the road?

What would happen if you made these stations conquerable, like the some of the stations in 0.0 used to be like? (With multiple stations in a system in Empire, you couldnt use POSs.) FW participants could group together and try to capture or release the station for their Faction or ally.

However, only the host faction or the current faction would gain control, not player corps or alliances. Once under the host factions control, any agents can be considered captured or escaped. Enemies of the state will not be able to dock until they or their allies recapture it. This would also release any agents to be used again!

Are there any level 4 quality 18 Amarr agents in Minmatar space?

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rainhailer

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:13:00 +0000

Originally by: Tempest Kane

I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.

Plus it'd populate low-sec!

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Rainhailer

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:12:00 +0000

Would there be any chance of getting factions (such as Mordus and the Jovians) to take part, and if they get enough player support, maybe carve out sovereignty for themselves in some other faction's space?

Also, will there be any possibility of 0.0 pirate factions getting involved and taking space from the empire factions?

I'm asking because I remember reading in a previous devblog that system security status could be altered, and I think I saw that borders could change.

Plus I'd love to fight for the Jovians or Mordus, pwn some Caldaris =)

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Tempest Kane

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:09:00 +0000

Edited by: Tempest Kane on 14/09/2007 17:10:59
Will factional low sec stations be conqurable by a corporation or alliance who decides to support/fight for an opposed faction of said station owning faction?

If so i see a strong use and incentive for 0.0 groups to take part and secure low-sec hub points for logistical reasons + cyno nets to empire useing the pos/portaling system.

I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.

Its time for the sandbox to expand inwards.

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by CCP Greyscale

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:05:00 +0000

Originally by: Acacia Everto
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 14/09/2007 16:57:30
Will it be similar to the tournament in that you pick a faction to fight for, and gain standing/LP towards them? And also, will factional warfare include just PvE, or both PvE and PvP in that you fight against those who say sponsored the Amarr Empire which is at war with the Minmatar whom you sponsored? If so, do you gain standing/LP for killing people who sponsored your opposing faction?

The current design is strongly PvP-centric - there are PvE elements, but the focus is on small gangs of fighters running around beating the snot out of each other for king and country (or equivalent).

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Del Narveux

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:04:00 +0000

Sounds good Ill try to update my post with more in-depth stuff this weekend when I get a chance. But if youre going to imlement this, there needs to be some more ways of cancelling out really bad existing standing because alot of longtime, bored highsec dwellers and .0 soldiers--the two groups I see being most interested in this--have built up really godawful standings with lots of factions, and no real way to raise it since less than -2.0 faction means NO MISSIONS FOR YOO. This would be particularly problematic if said standings start doing stuff with docking rights.
_________________
[SAK] Alumnus--And Proud Of It! -- aka Cpt Bogus
Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?

Originally by: Wrangler
Well, at least we have forum PvP..

Your thoughts on Factional Warfare is requested! - by Bruno Bonner

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:57:00 +0000

In support to Tharrn's comments, but also supporting current game mechanics and existing stations i would like to point the following:

Under the Youl covention, the creation of CONCORD and the Cease-Fire agreements between all the four core Empires i would have guessed the following were signed on treaties:

No empire or sovereign nation that abides to CONCORD rules can deny docking to any other pilot, not even criminals. However there is freedom of liberty on the services fees applied to said individuals.

Gate and Station Sentrys will only attack Criminals and Outlaws defined by CONCORD rules, individuals who are not welcomed in empires will not be taken care of by CONCORD fleets, however their Navies are free to deal with said tresspassers if they see fit.

So you see, increasing the cost of operating from an opposing faction's station should tripple so at least they comply to CONCORD agreements but make life a hell of a lot more difficult to said organizations. Today we also have the random navy spawn when someone with faction standings -5.0 or lower enter the enemy sovereign space. That also difficults moving freely.

The standings mechanics is already in place, just make use of it properly.

Bruno
------
aka BinderAJ