|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 08:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:They should reap any rewards.
Given the content of your post I think you are missing a word.
Neutrals should have access to upgrades that support industry only, access to slots and market broker fee reductions yes, clone costs no.
This should continue if other benefits are introduced such as reduced repair costs etc, these should not benefit neutrals.
As for other upgrades: -
Link NPC Strength to systems level. Only E-war at higher levels.
If station lockout is introduced at higher level then perhaps a bribe docking fee at lower levels for the enemy militia to discourage repeatedly docking up.
Repair costs.
Planetary interaction bonuses - perhaps a good one for neutrals.
Could introduce cheaper, faster slots to benefit local production |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 21:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
The cost and method of maintaining the upgrades is certainly an interesting point. As a mainly Solo pilot would I want to add LP to the hub? Perhaps if I was LP rich but the bonuses do not really seem tailored to give me an immediate benefit. I can certainly see corps and alliances wanting to keep certain systems upgraded but the onus will still be on the individual to contribute LP. Is there any method of seeing who has contributed LP?
At the moment I get an evemail notifying me of an LP reward I have received from a complex completion; normally I just spend it in bulk on faction mods/ships. With different methods of expenditure I would perhaps like to track this better. Is there any other way to track you LP reward history and spend? I can find the total in the journal, it may be helpful for it to work like the faction standings tabs so you can see your history, a proper LP wallet journal would be better though. Is the LP history in the API, could corps track their members contributions this way?
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 10:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Seanigulous wrote:Why not have defensive plexing put some LP back into the hub? Still no personal benefit, fine, but at least a benefit.
This I think is a good idea and cynojammers as well but needs careful balancing. Could it be made to still allow jump freighters to lock on but not combat capitals?
Insurance - not cheaper insurance as people would just buy from the one system but increased pay-outs based on system level.
System Safety (Lawlessness) - there has been an assumption that upgrades boost a system from the current level, what if systems that are not upgraded are not as good/safe as they are now, side effects of the warzone. No upgrades - Gate Guns do less damage or take longer to activate, could also link in Navy Faction NPC strength/E-war ability in plexes. Perhaps also increase difficulty and therefore bounties of local pirate rats at lower levels, this kind of connects in if neutrals do not end up getting benefits when the system is upgraded, may give reasons for some neutrals to try to keep systems less upgraded/interfere with the militia although this is tricky if they have no method of bringing the LP in the hub down.
Devs seem a bit quiet, will there be any last changes or is it all going out as it is on the test server?
I would still like a better way to track LP spend in hubs and LP received?
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Really not seeing people make use of the upgrade system.
CanGÇÖt help but feel that it needs to be harder to reduce the upgrade level.
More direct benefits need to be introduced.
I still feel linking NPC difficulty to upgrade level is an option.
LP rewards increase with warzone control but how about increasing LP rewards for PVP kills dependant on system upgrade level. (I am aware of the market manipulation exploit but this needs fixing separately) This would allow a faction that has fewer systems to reap greater rewards defensively (through ship kills) on a local basis.
Defensive plexing could occur at an accelerated time rate with higher upgrade levels. This does make it easier to defend key upgraded systems, but systems already vulnerable which should have a lower system upgrade level are still harder to defend.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
If the system upgrade level is not going to be more stable, then the industrial benefits need be modified to be a bit more fixed.
On a weekly (or monthly) basis the average upgrade level could be calculated and the industrial upgrades provided for the following week (month). This prevents the industrial reward being just available on a snapshot basis.
This could be reset if the system falls, or not and the enemy faction could reap the reward of an invested system for a short time.
This could actually be rolled out to other upgrades.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Not sure if this belongs here but
Would it be possible to have an indication on the direction of movement of the % contested, say a small red up arrow or down green arrow indicating whether the percentage last moved up or down?
This does give small amount of Intel regarding systems being offensively defensively plexed.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 07:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Given that all the rewards are for offensive plexing then I feel the contested percentage should naturally dissipate over time.
Making these comments it also occurs to me that it seems difficult to tie system upgrade level with offensive benefits rather than defensive benefits, perhaps there should be flow through to adjacent systems, if an adjacent system is under enemy control then there could be increased PVP kill rewards in the adjacent system % increase linked to upgrade level, this may encourage upgrading of border systems.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 01:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
I may be alone but I do not have a problem with the current war zone control swing and cash out events. It requires a lot of plexing (more pvp potential) and a level of coordination to achieve. There are issues with massive lp generation through speed tanking plexes but this is better resolved via the plex changes proposed in the other thread.
Better system upgrades are good and it is the quality of local upgrades that will drive lp investment into the hubs for people's home systems above the lower levels that will be easier to maintain war zone control.
Interestingly I think the capture changes may encourage factions not to defensive plex to much. Systems close to vulnerable state will only pay out so much when offensively plexed. This would be the best time to invest lp to raise the upgrade level as there will only be a limited number of offensive plexes to be run before no rewards are given. Rewards for defensive plexing at this level are higher and combined with reduced lp bleed could be fed back into the hub.
In fact the defensive plex rewards at this level are higher than the lp bleed amounts.
There is the danger the enemy plex and bash an upgraded system and this could force tough fights.-á
My biggest fear is the gallente war zone drops back to a stagnant level with low level of war zone control and poor rewards.-á
Sadly although we can test mechanics on sisi the outcome will not be certain until it is live.
Please don't make me run missions for cash again.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 06:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ok so I am a little curious over some of the finer details.
Say if I were in the Minmatar Militia and ran Major at level five then I would get 75k lp?
Is the LP bleed from the hub based on the modified or unmodified amount so it would be 10% of 75k or 25k?
Does this mean that if I join the TLF and they are at level 5 warzone control and run a caldari major then it is three times as effective at removing lp from the hub than being in the Gallente militia at tier 2.
If I defensive plex a major at level 5 warzone control with a high vulnerability do I get 56.25k lp? (75% of 75k) compared to the 12.5k lp they may have got for offensively completing a major at Tier 1?
If this is the case then assuming I put that LP into the hub pay a 75% tax then that is still 14k lp compared to the 1.25k lp (tier 1) reduction from the hub for them offensively plexing. Is this correct?
Have I got any of the above correct, I just did a 10hour night shift my thinking may be off.
ISK cost in LP stores. Currently there is also an ISK reduction in the LP stores with the warzone level. Will any ISK prices be adjusted; do you expect any impact on newer items added to the LP store such as datacores? Was their price set with the possible reduction in mind that is now being lost?
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 20:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think her round up towards the end of the blog is good.
Not sure if the initial maths stacks up as she seems to using a set lp isk conversation ratio for old and new mechanics. This may not take into account the current isk reductions we get in lp stores that will be missing in the future.
Also suggesting players can do 3 majors an hour is perhaps possible under current frigate farming mechanics but does not really account for scouting, interruptions and pvp in the future with the plex changes.
In the future warzone level will also need to be maintained. At the moment no lp is lost by a militia when the hub is empty and this is how they are left. In the future a bigger portion of lp wil be required to be invested to maintain upgrades or lose tier levels this reduces the amount of lp available for conversation to isk.
Defensive plexing rewards and reduced bleed could mitigate the above hence the much lower bleed level but defensive plexing just feels like a bad mechanic as a whole.-á
I also would suggest it is wrong to suggest that the new lower tiers are more profitable than the existing. urrent mechanics allow me to cash out at a higher tier while in the proposals you always cash out at the current level. Proposed tier 2 is not better than current tier4 which is where I have been cashing out and where I expect the gallente militia to be.
It is an income nerf even for genuine FW players.-á
Jesters blog also contains an interesting overview. |
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 12:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
In regards to High sec station changes in tax and costs, there are the normal number of reactionary threads/post popping up and it I think it may be important to clearly differentiate proposals for changes that are to overhaul low sec and those that may be linked to FW success. As other have mentioned refinery changes for all high sec changes may work but linking these to faction warfare is probably a bad idea. A good choice may be NPC corp taxes, higher NPC corp taxes when a faction is doing badly may help nudge players out into other corps or even the Militia corps.
Stationless Systems Have you considered lowering the LP upgrade requirements for the systems without stations, itGÇÖs hard to see any use for upgrades but if they were seen as a cheap way of boosting warzone control they may be more desirable?
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
I see itGÇÖs a grumpy night all round tonight.
I agree with Hans to an extent, I will not swap sides due to income, however as a casual player income does impact my ability to PVP, reduced income moves me from PVP to undertaking other activities such as missions. That is time spent not fully participating in Faction Warfare or I choose to subsidise with PLEX sales, which I have done before. I have not had to do either since inferno; I have been out in small ships plexing and PVPing at the same time and I believe that this was the intention of the faction warfare overhaul.
I think it is important when talking about income that this is seen for what it is, a general faction warfare income nerf, yes I believe even for Minmatar.
You see a number of things are being tweaked and most of the Blogs I have seen regarding this do not seem to account for all the current mechanics.
ISK discount in stores is being removed. This is big.
Hubs require more LP and although LP is theoretically more available under the proposals at the moment very little LP is lost to LP bleed as systems are left without upgrades for long periods of time. Hard to judge but I get the feeling that it will leave less LP for cashing out in stores and require more general LP investment maintenance that could be a bit of a chore.
Cap on rewards for plexes in vulnerable systems, this will reduce the number of plexes giving LP. This arguably encourages a faction to bash systems so they can take control and get warzone points but even then it is still one less system full of plexes.
LP Bleed - Is it being reduced by that much? Currently 50% (12,500lp for a Major) if it ends up being 10% of the boosted LP amounts (7,500 lp for a major at level 5) rather than unmodified then it is not if the faction is at a high level. I am curious if it includes the current LP Multipliers at the moment I do not think I have ever seen it tested.
LP Multipliers - we have one now, I think people forget but it caps out at 20% I believe. I have yet to see a comparison of warzone tiers from current mechanics against the proposed that includes this
Income Nerf, It is possibly something that needs to happen, it has been possible to rack up extreme amounts of LP through farming and I would perhaps agree that the difference between Tier 5 being way much too profitable and Tier 1 being worse even than standard LP stores.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
High Incomes are due to Farming and it is this that needs to be addressed.
I do not think the proposed warzone control changes are the thing that will solve farming, the plex changes in regards to NPCGÇÖs both being required to be destroyed and the fact that they will tank are the things that will change the farmers. Players may still try to do it, but at least they will be combat fit and perhaps a little more willing to stand and fight.
The other change proposed that means that LP is not paid out for offensive plexing where a system is vulnerable will also help limit farming. Only players that are interested in getting PVP or reducing the upgrade level of the enemy systems will continue to plex in these systems.
For me it is the cap on how contested a system can become that will encourage defensive plexing. I gave up, kept trying to plex Deven down but with a red bar that never moves it is a pointless thankless task. The LP rewards proposed are much too high. CCP has stated before that active defence is preferred; circling a timer for LP with possibly no WT in system is not active defence. PVP rewards for defending should be higher. I do not think the beacon location change helps it just allows one party to ambush the other on the warp in.
GÇ£However, defending dungeons do not yield LP for now, to avoid abusive farming in a single set of safe systemsGÇ¥ From the Dev Blog
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
I feel the aim is to encourage a number of quite stable systems with others in flux.
Players already have lowsec homes and the stronger upgrades are certainly a step in the right direction, it is good local upgrades that will encourage high upgrade levels to be maintained. I understand CCP want to stay away from warefare link style bonuses but players may need more direct benefits to fully invest. It is possible that if the proposed upgrades here had originally gone live in Inferno that some corps with permanent homes may have taken advantage and you would see some permanently upgraded systems.
I do support LP bleed reduction to give some permanence to upgrades.
I still feel the current mechanics can work and work better than those proposed, I can see that there is a desire to nerf income. With upgrades easier to maintain and being more useful, adjustments in the warzone lp store reductions I feel are more appropriate nerf Tier 5 and boost Tier 1 but use the existing mechanics.
How do you intend to roll these changes out, I feel that if the npc/plex changes can be rolled out earlier than the complete overhaul of warzone mechanics then you may see some improvements without such drastic changes. We were promised iteration, this feels like starting again and I fear it is the last time this will happen.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 23:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Alticus C Bear wrote:High Incomes are due to Farming and it is this that needs to be addressed.
I do not think the proposed warzone control changes are the thing that will solve farming, the plex changes in regards to NPCGÇÖs both being required to be destroyed and the fact that they will tank are the things that will change the farmers. Players may still try to do it, but at least they will be combat fit and perhaps a little more willing to stand and fight.
....
We know it will still be a mostly pve mechanic. Why? Because amarr used to have to bring larger ships with guns to plexes due to t1 frigates not being buffed and the target painters from the rats. Despite this, plexing was still most efficiently done with pve ships. "It took less than a week to achieve the maximum faction warfare rank (Divine Commodore), GǪ.111 faction warfare complexes were captured GǪ I did not kill anyone in the process..Gǥ Ankhesentapemkah Posted - 2008.06.18 02:29:00 Now I agree that what they are doing with npcs will make it so you can fight others if you want. But if you are really after capturing as much space for your miltiia as you can you will warp out and run a different timer instead of risking your ship and the time it takes to go several jumps to reship. The only changes that would have really effected the pve nature of the occupancy war would have been for them to implement a timer countback and or a way to know where plexes are being attacked. I do support timer count back and also a notification system if handled correctly. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 23:09:00 -
[16] - Quote
Perhaps something simple like replicating current leadership skills targeting speed, range, agility etc.
If it did not stack when in a gang and capped out at 8% then being in fleet with a max skilled leader would always be better but it would give lower skilled gangs/ solo pilots a boost.
Bonuses based on the warfare links may be overpowered, except maybe a sensor strength boost.
Sadly I feel CCP has already set it's course on this. With the more recent proposals I had hoped for more info but things are a little quiet again. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
99
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 21:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
I notice the infrastructure hub has the existing upgrades still, are the changes outlined in the update going live with retribution? |
|
|
|