Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
605
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:33:00 -
[391] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote:What is the argument to plex for the losing side hans? I will answer this question one last time, and it will be the last post I make between us for the day, Cearain. Too many other people deserve to get a word in edgewise without circumventing walls of text that you fire off in rapid succession without waiting for a response, or even reading through and acknowledging the ones you do receive before you bounce off more rebuttals that show you never listened to begin with. The reason to plex for the losing side is because you want PvP opprtunities and because you care about helping that faction recover. Yes, thats right, there are players that will defy economic logic as long as they can make the base income necessary to support PvP with high target availability and will fight for bragging rights and factional pride as long as they can afford to do so whether or not they make the maximum isk possible....
Pvp may be a reason to be in an underdog militia - or an underdog alliance in null sec. But it is not a reason to plex for that miltiia. You seem to misunderstand that and be under the impression that plexing has much to do with pvp. I can tell you that most amarr don't view it that way. And there isn't really anything in the winter expansion that changes that.
If amarr are at tier 1 after winter they will likely just join caldari. They can get all the pvp advantages from this front and make much more from plexing.
But ok you want to rely on the "pvp opportunities" as a balance. I didn't realize you were that far gone. Do you do faction war for the pvp? Are you going to join amarr? White noise had allot of pvp opportunities didn't they? How are they doing? Are pvpers flocking to them?
Ok so we are left with factional pride and bragging rights in a pve plexing system. Of course, as new people enter the war everyday they don't have any of those things so they will just join the winning team. But I suppose you think the old guard militia will stay forever regardless of how economically foolish it is.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I've made these points explicitly clear, I will not be repeating them over and over again no matter how many posts you want to clog the thread up with after this asking me to repeat myself.
The fact that we disagree on whether the balancing factor should be PvP opportunities or Isk opportunities is a subjective issue. There is no right or wrong. You are absolutely correct that economically it doesnt make much sense for someone to join the losing faction, I've said every step of the way that the PvP incentive will always be stronger, and there is over four years of evidence to support that.
Finally you concede then that you the economic balance under your plan will greatly favor joining the winning side.
You hope that the "pvp opportunities" that the underdog has will compensate for this.
You claim you have 4 years of evidence that pvp opportunities provide a stronger incentive than economic incentives. Please list it out. I gave you evidence for the opposite conclusion.
1)To the extent there were economic incentives to join one or the other militia it was to join minmatar and caldari because the rats in the missions were easier. And well both factions always had greater numbers than thier enemy militias. Coincidence?
However we really never had economic incentives for plexing until inferno. And after inferno we saw nothing but an exodus from the underdog militias and growth in the economically leading militias.
2) Fweddit leaving amarr
3) Moar tears leaving amarr
4) 7th fleet leaving amarr
5) Wolfsbrigade never bothering to plex outside kamela faction war - except perhaps for minmatar.
6) Villore accords leaving gallente for minmatar
7) The actual numbers of people in minmatar militia versus amarr militia.
There are 7 pieces of evidence that economics is a strong motivator as to what militia somone will be in.
Please list your evidence.
Are you really going to use fweddit and moar tears as proof people will buck the tide of economics even though both left amarr due, at least in part, for economic reasons?
Are any minmatar alliances going to join amarr for the pvp opportunities?
You keep claiming this evidence exists. But I think you are the one ignoring data and history and just relying on speculation and perhaps anecdotal/bs stories of individuals.
But please don't let me put words in your mouth. You tell me this evidence.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
605
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:42:00 -
[392] - Quote
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.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Ugleb
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:51:00 -
[393] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:By the way, we have 4 years of history (and three months of history) to show that players will defensive plex systems that they care about without a reward. We shouldn't intentionally build a system that relies solely on economic incentives to defensive plex. Defensive LP encourages players to AFK far away from the enemy. Defensive plexing where the enemy isn't is boring and LP won't make it any less boring, just pay people to be bored. Don't be disingenuous: defensive plexing does not affect everyone equally, Amarr's 3 systems are not a chore to defend, this is a buff to whoever's on top.
I agree with this, I don't think that LP for defensive plexing will be necessary if players have a vested interest in maintaining a high WZC tier continuously.
If there needs to be a bonus for defensive plexing then I'd prefer the suggestion for bonus LP in PVP ship kills while in a defensive plex. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 23:01:00 -
[394] - Quote
Cearain wrote:We know it will still be a mostly pve mechanic. Anything you propose will be a PVE mechanic when one side decides to not show up for a fight.
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 23:22:00 -
[395] - 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. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
549
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 00:01:00 -
[396] - Quote
I have only plexed for Amarr through mostly thin times. When we hit tier 4 I contributed over a million LP to upgrades. I felt a certain amount of pride in that. I'm still working through the blueprints but when all is said and done I expect to make 7 billion isk off of that spike. For a dedicated PvPer like myself that isn't bad at all.
I currently have 2.8 million Amarr LP from plexing. I expect to have many fold that by December. Even if we don't spike again before winter, a constant LP store will offer me another great cash out.
These new changes give an underdog a much greater opportunity to make isk. Really - tier one is the only tier with a penalty. Amarr need 12(?) systems to get out of it. I hope no one is seriously complaining about 12 systems.
The one point I have consistently made is that I feel it is too easy to spin LP out of thin air. Unlike Cerain though, I like the idea of defensive LP as it has benn presented. I think the main culprits for LP production are level 4 missions and 'foreign' plexing. @Hans- if you add a source of LP in one area you need to pull it back in others. I want to be able to take a few comrades, jump clone back to Metropolis, and threaten Minmatar's WZC. The goal should be to force some Minmatar pilots to leave the Kourm theater of operations. If Minmatar are drowning in LP though that won't happen. |
Perkin Warbeck
Amarrian Space Poodles 24eme Legion Etrangere
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 00:17:00 -
[397] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:X Gallentius wrote:The majority of the reward for defensive plexing should be to hold onto system upgrades and warzone control, not LP. If LP is involved, then defensive plexing should require something more than an unfit frigate.
I absolutely agree. That's why I'm encouraging them to have the plex spawn determined by the player inside the plex, so that defensive plexers don't get immunity from NPC's and have to deal with the same spawn threat as offensive plexing.
This is bizarre. Why in a factional war would your own side shoot you?
I know that many people in FW are attracted to the sovereignty mechanic in FW as a 'them against us' scenario. I know I am. The opposition try and take a system while I try and defend it and vice versa. With this in place you are essentially saying that a plex is no more than any other mission complex in EvE that must be cleared of all rats. It actually destroys the concept of FW. The risk of defensive plexing in a unfit frigate (whatever the f*ck that is given some of the fits on BCs I've seen) is that someone else from the other militia may shoot you!
Just nerf the LP payouts. Reward the behaviour you want to encourage and penalise the behaviour you don't want. If you want to encourage PvP then reward that appropriately. If you want more PvP focus the fighting in region of the warzone that can only be contested sequentially so that chokepoints are created and more pilots are concentrated in those systems. If you want people to invest in warzone control then by all means reward plexing. But the point is balance. At the moment the situation is totally out of control. FW income should be a combination of plexing, PvP and missioning - not the exclusive realm of one or the other. |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
147
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 00:24:00 -
[398] - Quote
Cearain wrote: 6) Villore accords leaving gallente for minmatar
There are 7 pieces of evidence that economics is a strong motivator as to what militia somone will be in.
If you are going to list your evidence, at least fact check your evidence. Villore Accords is in Gallente not Minmatar.
Maybe you should be asking for tools to help Amarr organize rather than bitching about favoritism. Oh wait that would require no in fighting. Who am I kidding. That will never happen. |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
275
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 00:51:00 -
[399] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:If you are going to list your evidence, at least fact check your evidence. Villore Accords is in Gallente not Minmatar.
Wow, you've caught Cearain in a grave error.
Quantum Cats Syndicate. Formerly of Villore Accords, and the only member of it I've ever heard of before. Famously switched to Minmatar while remaining Gallente so that they could receive Minmatar LP.
Marcel Devereux wrote:Maybe you should be asking for tools to help Amarr organize rather than bitching about favoritism.
Don't be absurd. Why would only Amarr need special tools to help them organize? Why would only Amarr be especially afflicted with infighting?
They don't need anything like that. Just better mechanics, no defensive LP, and either a reasonable rollout or a 2-3 months supply of vodka. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2835
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:02:00 -
[400] - Quote
Perkin Warbeck wrote: This is bizarre. Why in a factional war would your own side shoot you?
They wouldn't. What I'm saying is this - the proposed plan cuts several waves of rats down into a single rat that pops in periodically if you're offensively plexing. We're no longer talking about mission-style PvE content. We're talking about an NPC player-intruder proxy. Both serve the exact same function - they warp in, stop the timer, and threaten to kill you. You must destroy either to hold the plex. The only difference between the two is that the NPC will inevitably be much easier.
In this new paradigm of plex content, its just as logical for you to be defending your own plex and have an NPC warp in, just as a player may warp in on you during a defensive plexing effort. Barring some programming barrier, I don't see any reason why any player, under any form of plexing activty, can't be threatened periodically by these NPC proxies. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
606
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:04:00 -
[401] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: These new changes give an underdog a much greater opportunity to make isk. Really - tier one is the only tier with a penalty. Amarr need 12(?) systems to get out of it. I hope no one is seriously complaining about 12 systems..
Getting and holding 12 systems has proven to be very difficult against the minmifarm. All the while the underdog plexers will be making a pittiance of lp compared to their enemies.
I think you will find this new system everything will snowball to 2 winning sides. It may take some time for the dust to settle on who the winners will be but after that it will snowball.
Hans refers to our hitting tier 5 as a sort of hail mary pass. He is eliminating that hail mary pass. There will be no potential bright side or payday for the underdog.
You know I have been a fairly vocal proponent of prodding amarr to do plexing - and at least not constantly plex for minmatar.
But with these changes there can be no question the smart players will plex for the winning side. There are no goals that the underdog can hit to make for a good pay day. It will just be a constant grind. But those who grind for the winning sides will make several times the isk. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
549
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:15:00 -
[402] - Quote
My Motivation |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:35:00 -
[403] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:We know it will still be a mostly pve mechanic. Anything you propose will be a PVE mechanic when one side decides to not show up for a fight.
+1 to this. No sovereignty system you can imagine will be pvp-based if the other side is a no show. Drawing comparisons to running sanctums in a rival's nullsec is ridiculous.
However, you do need to deal with the issue of whether or not it is more efficient to contest a plex or wait and run one later/elsewhere. Under the current mechanics, it is easier for defenders to undo their opponents progress by running dplexes after they leave, and it is more efficient for attackers to leave for a bit and run plexes elsewhere, since it is unlikely a pvper will subject themselves to winding down a half-run plex.The easiest way to drive out the farmers is to make them realize that there is no easy money in FW - they will have to fight for every loyalty point.
Question for CCP Ytterbium about the system upgrades: Do the bonus slots only apply to facilities the station already possessed, or will it give slots where there are currently none? The former is somewhat anemic, as there are only a handful of systems with extensive enough services to merit maintaining upgrades. The later is actually pretty awesome, as it makes any system with a station potentially valuable. (I suspect it is the former). And is this the extent of system upgrade changes, or will there potentially be more? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2836
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:37:00 -
[404] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote: I want to be able to take a few comrades, jump clone back to Metropolis, and threaten Minmatar's WZC. The goal should be to force some Minmatar pilots to leave the Kourm theater of operations. If Minmatar are drowning in LP though that won't happen.
You do realize that they are scaling the investment needed to upgrade along with the payouts, right? As the LP income rises, so does the amount taxed every time you upgrade the IHUB.
The mechanic change would mean that taking over a system (which will be much easier in backwater systems) hurts far more than simple plexing someone down. This is what drives me nuts about the current system - you can plex us all day and its meaningless. As long as we hold the system, all the bleed in the world doesnt hurt a bit. We just time our spike and BOOM instant full cashout, every time. You never get a chance to really stick it to us.
I understand your concerns about the LP payout buff, but like I said we have to pay that much more to upgrade anyways. But that's besides the point, because throwing LP at the Amarr threat won't even work as a defense tactic - if you hit the bunker we'll have no choice be to be drawn into a fight. Even if we poured LP in as you plexed us, we would only be upping the ante ourselves by placing 6 WZC points on the line. Because 6 points can easily threaten a Tier level, every contested system is an immediate threat to one's way of life regardless of the bleed state.
This is one of those chance to turn up the stakes, in real time, driving real conflict. The sliding, spiking, cash out whenever Shangri-la is super convenient for the winning militia. We shop at our leisure while our systems burn to the ground (just look at the map if you dont believe me). Why is this possible? Because we get to control everything. We decide what tier to achieve, and when that will happen. The only way you can affect this is by taking away enough systems to cap our spike.
Call me masochistic, but I think its much more interesting if we start having some of the cheese robbed from us the minute you knock us below 5 instead of letting us have a bit more time to gain systems back and do a little dance around the penalty in the process. Otherwise, we'll just keep the LP, take a couple more systems back, and cash out at Tier 5 again as if it never happened. Like I said, the current system insulates the winning militia from any kind of harm as long as they save their LP and time their shopping.
I thought the point of all these changes was to add consequence to Faction Warfare. Allowing all of the consequences to losing systems and bleeding LP to be circumvented by what are essentially coordinated shopping mall raids. It is just silly. We need to make the winner hurt as they start to fall from glory, and feed the underdog more and more as they come back from behind. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
606
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:38:00 -
[405] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Cearain wrote: 6) Villore accords leaving gallente for minmatar
There are 7 pieces of evidence that economics is a strong motivator as to what militia somone will be in.
If you are going to list your evidence, at least fact check your evidence. Villore Accords is in Gallente not Minmatar. Maybe you should be asking for tools to help Amarr organize rather than bitching about favoritism. Oh wait that would require no in fighting. Who am I kidding. That will never happen.
So I give 7 pieces of solid evidence that players follow the isk. And your response is to make a technical complaint about one of them.
As I sit here I can name a few other pieces of evidence that should make it clear to anyone that isk talks louder than "pvp opportunities":
8) Nulli
9) Caldari miltiia bigger than gallente.
10) Not a single large minmatar entity left minmatar militia after inferno. Don't any of them want pvp??
Not to mention that you will likely still get the pvp opportunities if you say fly for caldari instead of amarr, or fly for minmatar instead of gallente.
So the argument that people will join the losing side for pvp opportunities is not only illogical the overwhelming evidence is against it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
606
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:49:00 -
[406] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:We know it will still be a mostly pve mechanic. Anything you propose will be a PVE mechanic when one side decides to not show up for a fight. +1 to this. No sovereignty system you can imagine will be pvp-based if the other side is a no show....
This is why the first and most obvious step to making it a pvp mechanic is letting the players know where they need to go to fight for the plex. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:52:00 -
[407] - Quote
I absolutely agree, within reasonable limits (both to avoid sending out garbage information/spam, and to prevent absurd blobbery). I would wholeheartedly support a constellation intel channel for plex distress beacons (possibly with more detail information for upgraded systems). |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2836
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:53:00 -
[408] - Quote
I will say this much to everyone as we continue the debate going into Winter - the way we value incentives will dictate the type of player Faction Warfare attracts. We have a choice as to which direction we can shape the feature. We can choose to develop a system that uses the profit off of wild economic swings to drive conflict, and we'll likely continue to see growth in Faction Warfare amongst the crowd that wants chase economic benefit. PvP-ers at the lower tiers may starve in the short term, but if we wait long enough an outside forces that's greedy enough will help them.
Alternatively, we can continue to push to make plexing as PvP-risky as possible, and open the war up to more direct conflict in more locations (including defensive plexes), and attract the type of players that are interested in the pew pew that Faction Warfare has to offer more than the isk incentives. In this case, those that do come for the isk place their lives on the line and add to the pew content in the process.
Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, I personally believe in building the system to encourage the latter, not the former. If we're going to continue to call Faction Warfare a place for PvP, than we need to make it comfortable to live and fight all the time, regardless of what side of the war you are on. Hitting Tier 1 shouldn't be so crippling that you wash out to another miltiia, there should be hope at Tier 2. Faction Warfare players are casual PvPer's. They don't have the patience or time or money in the bank to wait around weeks for a lucrative comeback. Those that pew pew gotta eat.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
606
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 02:09:00 -
[409] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I will say this much to everyone as we continue the debate going into Winter - the way we value incentives will dictate the type of player Faction Warfare attracts. We have a choice as to which direction we can shape the feature. We can choose to develop a system that uses the profit off of wild economic swings to drive conflict, and we'll likely continue to see growth in Faction Warfare amongst the crowd that wants chase economic benefit. PvP-ers at the lower tiers may starve in the short term, but if we wait long enough an outside forces that's greedy enough will help them.
Alternatively, we can continue to push to make plexing as PvP-risky as possible, and open the war up to more direct conflict in more locations (including defensive plexes), and attract the type of players that are interested in the pew pew that Faction Warfare has to offer more than the isk incentives. In this case, those that do come for the isk place their lives on the line and add to the pew content in the process.
Regardless of which side of the debate you are on, I personally believe in building the system to encourage the latter, not the former. If we're going to continue to call Faction Warfare a place for PvP, than we need to make it comfortable to live and fight all the time, regardless of what side of the war you are on. Hitting Tier 1 shouldn't be so crippling that you wash out to another miltiia, there should be hope at Tier 2. Faction Warfare players are casual PvPer's. They don't have the patience or time or money in the bank to wait around weeks for a lucrative comeback. Those that pew pew gotta eat.
False dichotomy, and a whole lot of confused thinking.
Having large economic swings does not mean less pvp. It just means all the militias get a payday instead of just one or 2.
Nor do the underdogs need anyone ot bail them out in the current mechanic. You keep saying that but right now amarr has over half the systems vulnerable or in our control. Who bailed us out? You never answer this question either. Why don't you ask susan because she is the one spouting this nonesense.
Giving people lp for defensive plexing does not mean you will have more conflict in defensive plexes. You will have less conflict because you are giving an economic incentive to let the offensive plexers finish their plex.
As far as making it pvp centered, you are the one who is diluting the message.
You are the one on csm letting ccp get diverted from this goal so your militia can farm defensive plexes.
You ran on the platform to make plexing a pvp mechanic. Yet somehow the 2 main proposals to accomplish that, get tabled, but your miltiias concern that they cant continue to farm systems after they capture them is getting addressed. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2837
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 02:23:00 -
[410] - Quote
Nothing is tabled, Cearain. This is something I am in talks daily with CCP about and that they are in the process of making more decisions about Faction Warfare. No one ever said this was the complete package. Politicize this all you want - but LP for defensive plexing is by no means high on my priority list, just because it was something CCP made a decision about prior to the issue of plexing alerts.
If you want to stop diluting the message, stop posting 16 walls of text saying the exact same thing about defensive plexing. Everyone (including CCP) gets it - you don't like it, you think its game breaking, and you would rather we maintain the status quo where the underdog starves while waiting for economic rapture (hey, as long as they get it....someday....hopefully before they give up and quit!)
You can keep repeating the d-plexing rebuttal over and over and over again, and try to accuse me of all kinds of evil at the same time, but its not helping CCP understand the bigger issue - the need for alerts and PvP risk. Nobody enjoys reading a clogged thread dominated by someone who can't respect others once they've made their point about a particular issue. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
469
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 02:41:00 -
[411] - Quote
Cearain wrote:So I give 7 pieces of solid evidence that players follow the isk. And your response is to make a technical complaint about one of them.
Many of us left QCATS because we wanted to fight under the Gallente banner. So, what this shows is that some players will do what they want, and others will do what they want as well.
BTW, most of the Gallente corporations and alliances have stayed with Gallente FW even though Caldari have the clear plexing advantage (even though it is more "efficient" to join Minmatar FW).
And to be fair to QCATS, they were a large contributor in griefing Nulli, and they are a large contributor to Gallente FW in the Gallente/Caldari theater. AND they aren't doing it with their alts. They are plexing with their mains killing more people than any other FW corp. |
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
276
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 04:04:00 -
[412] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Everyone (including CCP) gets it - you don't like it, you think its game breaking, and you would rather we maintain the status quo where the underdog starves while waiting for economic rapture
Cearain wants to push for a cashout, but that he wants that has nothing at all to do with defensive LP. Defensive LP is not what ends 'push for a cashout'; moving warzone control benefits to earned LP rather than store prices is what ends it.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Nobody enjoys reading a clogged thread dominated by someone who can't respect others once they've made their point about a particular issue.
When people are seen to be raising their voices, sometimes it's because they're just jerks, and sometimes it's because someone keeps raising the noise level with comments like "you don't like defensive LP because you want the underdog to starve." |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2838
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 04:37:00 -
[413] - Quote
Kuehnelt wrote:Cearain wants to push for a cashout, but that he wants that has nothing at all to do with defensive LP. Defensive LP is not what ends 'push for a cashout'; moving warzone control benefits to earned LP rather than store prices is what ends it.
Yes, I'm aware. I wasn't referring to defensive plexing, I was referring to the payout scheme Cearain repeatedly defends.
Quote:When people are seen to be raising their voices, sometimes it's because they're just jerks, and sometimes it's because someone keeps raising the noise level with comments like "you don't like defensive LP because you want the underdog to starve."
Yeah, that's not what I said. See above. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 06:40:00 -
[414] - Quote
So many walls of texts. My eyes will bleed soon.
I was looking at the new tier system and had a weird idea. To help the losing side to equialize things:
For example assume that Amarr is at T1 and Minmatar is at T5. In this case an Amarrian player will get 50% LP for doing offensive plexes, which will probably result in Amarr not even bothering with trying to recapture systems.
My proposal is : Reverse Tier LP reward bonuses for recapturing currently occupied systems.
So at T1 if an Amarrian player does a plex in Kourmounen (Which was an amarr system but is under Minmatar control now) they will get as much LP as in Minmatar militia(T5 if minmatar is at T5 or T4 if minmatar is at T4, T3 if Minmatar is at T3). If the same player plexes Auga (minmatar system), he'll get his normal T1 LP.
....and to wrap up: (Warning Caps Lock!)
DO NOT REWARD LP'S FOR PLEXING IMMEDIATELY!!!11! KEEP TRACK OF THEM AND REWARD THEM WHEN THE SYSTEM IS CAPTURED/DECONTESTED.
You are doing this in incursions. You can also do this in FW.
This would encourage the losing side to recapture the lost homeland systems. |
Shirley Serious
The Khanid Sisters of Athra
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 08:21:00 -
[415] - Quote
I don't think I understand the maths they're proposing for LP for defensive plexing.
Quote: As such, tier1 WZ would reduce all LP gains by 50%, tier2 would keep them on the same field as of now, tier3 would give a 100% LP gain bonus, tier4 150% and tier5 200% LP gain bonus.
Quote:Defensive plexing gives LP: as title says, but with a twist. LP amount is based on contested system % to avoid farming. Thus, a system that is 50% contested would only give 50% of the total LP amount available.
Tier 1 attacker, Tier5 defender. System X is 50% contested.
Attacker captures a plex that has a default value of 10,000 LP. because they are at tier 1, this makes that plex only worth 5000 LP to that attacker, is that right ?
Defender defends a plex, that also has a value of 10,000 LP. What amount of VP do they get ? 5000 LP since system is 50% contested ? 5000 LP +200% for being tier 5 = 15,000 LP ?
Tier 2 attacker, tier 4 defender, would get 10,000 lp for attacker, 12,500 for defender at 50% contested system. ? Tier 3 attacker, tier 3 defender, would be 20,000 lp for attacker, 10,000 for defender. ? Tier 4 attacker, tier 2 defender, would be 25,000 lp for attacker, 5000 for defender. ? Tier 5 attacker, tier 1 defender, would be 30,000 lp for attacker, 2500 for defender. ? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
278
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 08:48:00 -
[416] - Quote
Deerin wrote:...My proposal is : Reverse Tier LP reward bonuses for recapturing currently occupied systems... Oh dear, a good bordering on brilliant idea from the other side of the fence .. what is the world coming to!!!!1111
Deerin wrote:DO NOT REWARD LP'S FOR PLEXING IMMEDIATELY!!!11! KEEP TRACK OF THEM AND REWARD THEM WHEN THE SYSTEM IS CAPTURED/DECONTESTED. Welcome to the Common Sense Lobby, may your words carry weight and your arguments crush the opposition! |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
110
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 14:17:00 -
[417] - Quote
On reflection, I can't say I'm a fan of LP for defensive plexing in its current state. I think everyone in this convo agrees that farmers are the enemy here, but there seems to be a misconception about what actually causes the farming.
People farm FW plexes (and they do farm them more than missions I can almost guarantee you) because it's 1) profitable and 2) horrifyingly easy, though that depends on which faction you join, admittedly. By giving as much as 75% of the possible LP gained from regular offensive plexing, we're just creating another isk source for farmers that is even easier than it is now, as you don't even need to worry about tanking npcs.
Now if we do what Hans suggests, and basically make it so you have to deal with NPCs whether it's a defensive or an offensive plex, that might solve our farming problem right there. No more 2 day old alts running unrestricted majors by themselves, assuming the NPC changes don't come out totally FUBAR.
Everyone needs to keep in mind that any solution has to take into account both micro and macro mechanics (plex mechanics and incentives). They both affect the problems we have in equal measure. Farmers farm because it's easy and profitable. People don't defend because it is not profitable and incredibly boring/time consuming. But that's not the whole story. People also don't defend because its ineffectual against the farming horde.
Case in point, back when Gallente had no systems, part of the reason so few plexed was that the system was stacked against us. A huge plex spawn would occur at downtime when we were hopelessly outnumbered, and you would sometimes get nothing in the system for the rest of the day. For those of us who couldn't be on at DT, it was impossible to affect the outcome, so many eventually just stopped doing it.
Likewise, people didn't defensive plex now because of the endless tide of farmers that could contest any type of plex without having to use ammo or change ships. Now incentives surely had something to do with the lack of people defensive plexing, and maybe more defensive plexers would have balanced out the farmers, but it still wouldn't have taken the farmers out of the picture, and that's really what the goal is here.
By shifting farmers over to defensive plexing, there's a very likely danger that the meta will swing all the way from one extreme to the other. The front will be so stagnant that no one will want to offensive plex in any meaningful way, and system occupancy will grind to a halt. If people can't win, they won't want to play, and we'll be back to the bad old days when no one cared about plexing or system occupancy. |
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Zombie Ninja Space Bears
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 14:45:00 -
[418] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Speaking of which, how do you feel about neutrals having access to your precious upgrades? As explained in the blog, the original goal was to promote an industrial backbone in low-security space, but you may feel differently.
Thanks for your time!
As a proud, low-sec FW Industrialist, IMHO, it is bullshit. If they want to reap the benefits, they should have to sow seed as well. Industry can be done just as easily from a FW corp as it can be from a neut corp. In fact, I personally think it is easier. If they want the added rewards, then they should be required to take on that added risk as well.
In closing, neuts should not be affected by FW system upgrades for good or ill (except in the case of anchorable things like the proposed Cyno-Jammer, which they can destroy to get rid of anyway). Quit Crying and Just Suck It Up Mining Barge buff: CCP has acknowledged that miners in general are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2839
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 14:54:00 -
[419] - Quote
Nice words, Julius.
While I agree we need to have the rats shoot you in a defensive plex if at all plausible from the programming end, I still maintain that the absolute priority is making sure the proper PvP incentives are in place. Making plexing dangerous because of the likelihood of PvP will do far more to cut down on farming than any NPC-based solution.
NPC's are only part of the equation, all they do is guarantee that your victim is in something other than a gunless, warp stabbed, nano-frigate. They dont make it more likely that the victim will stick around in the first place.
If we can get CCP to implement the timer rollback and institute some kind of alert system to bring PvPers out to the plexing (offensive and defensive alike), the PvP risk inside plexes will dwarf the risk caused by rats. Once farmers realized there is no hiding their plexing efforts, they'll cease to become risk-averse farmers and become consensual PvPers whenever they enter the plex.
So yes - rat aggro for both types of plexing is great, the PvP incentives are better and I hope others keep speaking up in support of this. Otherwise all we'll be left with is farmers using new ships and still running constantly to plex wherever they can hide from the PvP crowd, little will have changed. PvP incentives are king this winter - they are the most badly needed fixes.
CCP hasn't ruled these out, they're still discussing this internally, so I could use your support in bringing plexing to the place we've wanted it to be all along - the premiere venue for guaranteed sub-cap PvP. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Alaekessa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Zombie Ninja Space Bears
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 15:17:00 -
[420] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:I absolutely agree, within reasonable limits (both to avoid sending out garbage information/spam, to force people to be roaming space, and to prevent blobbery). I would wholeheartedly support a constellation intel channel for plex distress beacons (possibly with more detail information for upgraded systems).
Curious about this...
Are you saying that when an offensive plex is opened, a channel would open for every member of the defending militia akin to the channel that opens when an Incursion occurs?
If so, I like this idea. Quit Crying and Just Suck It Up Mining Barge buff: CCP has acknowledged that miners in general are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |