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) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 04:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:... A system's upgrades should be exciting enough to defend. Plain and simple. Whatever do you mean? Are you saying that cheaper clones and more indy slots are not good enough?!?!?!?! .. . Hahahahahahahaha.
Upgrade bonuses are pretty much like having an knitting machine as competition prize at an arm wrestling contest .. junk.
|
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
82
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 17:51:00 -
[62] - Quote
2 Big issues with the current implementation of iHub.
1. Other than the LP store, the rest of the bonuses have little/no desirably for most people in FW. Also upgrade options for systems with no stations is pointless. 2. Upgrading systems except for main hubs essentially feeds the opposing faction LP, there's really little incentive for defensive plexing outside of primary hub systems. ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Zarnak Wulf
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
357
|
Posted - 2012.05.31 14:51:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium - can you tell us if any of these ideas are striking your fancy at all? This thread is shockingly high on quality and low on troll. |
Noriko Mai
438
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 03:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
It will be the same as every HighSec system. No copy or research slots Manufactoring slots are availible everywhere in HS so why should someone move to LowSec for manufacturing? I produce only in HighSec, it's full of stations with 10+ manufacturing slots. The only industry thing that LowSec offers for me is (if I'm lucky) a copy slot with less than 12 days queue. The lower Tax seems kinda silly. This would be interesting in Jita 4-4 and not LowSec.
I don't know, maybe it's only me, but lower tax or more slots will not move my production or my produced stuff to LowSec (I will not haul the stuff in Low for a few more isk). I only use it to get the copys and the research done, move everything out of Low and then do the invention and production in HighSec.
IMHO the only reason to spend LPs for upgrading the systems is half LP cost in the LP store.
And yes I do FW (for Minmatar) with my main. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
627
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 14:31:00 -
[65] - Quote
Hey folks,
Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:
- Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
- Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
- Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
- Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
- Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
- Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
- Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
- Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations
Thanks for your time and ideas people! |
|
Noriko Mai
439
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 15:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:
- Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
- Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
- Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
- Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
- Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
- Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
- Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
- Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations
Thanks for your time and ideas people! LowSec, I'm coming!!!!!! |
Fleet Warpsujarento
State Protectorate Caldari State
118
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 15:19:00 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
The problem is not that there aren't enough extra slots. It's that the ones already there weren't being used in the first place.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2420
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 15:39:00 -
[68] - Quote
Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about The problem is not that there aren't enough extra slots. It's that the ones already there weren't being used in the first place.
Well yes, but if low sec becomes a faster and more efficient place to manufacture goods when compared to high sec (as it should be) than you'll see those slots fill up fast. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
745
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 16:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
i don't understand why system lockout should be part of the upgrade mechanics. The system has been contested, the infrastructure hub has been taken, the system changed owners. The fight is over (for now). Scotty is now on someone else' payrole.
I have nothing against the idea to make the upgreade levels more interesting by adding more "nice to haves". But this seems like a regression to me. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Zarnak Wulf
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
358
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 16:53:00 -
[70] - Quote
I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
171
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 17:10:00 -
[71] - Quote
So the beast CCP is not hearing impaired after all .. what a relief!
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations There is a major overhaul of POS in the pipe-line, one that will allow all sorts of fancy stuff for players to do with them, no?
Answer: POS in upgraded system have their fuel supplied by militia (ie. 100% reduction in fuel consumption) and depending on actual POS changes perhaps some bonus grid/cpu to install a critical module.
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic. The beauty of tying it to upgrade level is that it "forces the issue" with regards to keeping the LP sink constantly churning as well as it puts a lot more pressure on defenders to prevent too many plexes from being lost, lest the enemy establish a beachhead with reships on-site .. Has a much greater chance of curtailing the snowballs than anything else on the table as it will in the end come down to total available manpower rather than merely one TZ to rule them all with a skeleton crew running interference the other 16 hours of the day. |
Noriko Mai
440
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 18:10:00 -
[72] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations Answer: POS in upgraded system have their fuel supplied by militia (ie. 100% reduction in fuel consumption) and depending on actual POS changes perhaps some bonus grid/cpu to install a critical module. Maybe +5% reduced/increase fuel need per Level? So you have to recapture the system and/or upgrade it to get the benefit. |
bornaa
GRiD.
230
|
Posted - 2012.06.04 18:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:
- Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
- Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
- Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
- Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
- Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
- Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
- Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
- Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations
Thanks for your time and ideas people!
Haw about making it so it use fuel. So if you want to keep it up 24/7 it wont be cheap. And you can do it for one or two systems... but cyno jamming more systems would push you to bankrupt. That Ain't Right |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 20:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic.
+1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
457
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:05:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks,
Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
Thanks for your time and ideas people!
I would prefer if the system lockout rule be removed.
Or perhaps it only worked in completely decontested systems.
Lets say we make a move on a system that is level 1. We plant allot of plexing ships there so we can plex. As soon as the enemy sees that can they just put lp into the system locking us out of the stations.
From my perspective this won't be enough of an incentive for me to start moving my ships back into the war zone.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
457
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 21:11:00 -
[76] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:I'd prefer a system upgrade to lock out those with poor standing towards the militia. WT lockout should be automatic. +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time.
How many of the people who are against the station lockout are still around is questionable. But that is the question. Plenty of people are against the lockouts.
You have no basis to say it has been driving the fights. The huge economic advantages have been driving the fights and plexing. The station lockouts have done more to reduce the pvp than increase it.
There are 2 fronts Caldari/gallente and Minmatar/amarr.
CCP should just let one front keep the lock out rule and remove the lockout rule from the other front. 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
2421
|
Posted - 2012.06.05 22:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
Cearain wrote: The station lockouts have done more to reduce the pvp than increase it.
And do you have any statistical basis for this, either?
Cearain wrote: There are 2 fronts Caldari/gallente and Minmatar/amarr.
CCP should just let one front keep the lock out rule and remove the lockout rule from the other front.
This idea just seems silly. CCP is not going to make game design decisions just to cater to personal taste. Having special rules for one warfront just for the sake of being different than the other would be incredibly hard to justify, I sincerely doubt you'll ever reach ANY kind of player consensus over which warzone should have lockout or shouldn't.
The Caldari / Gallente warfront involves FAR more multi-jump travel and it is currently teeming with small gang roams. The Amarr / Minmatar front is the most compact, most connected to highsec, and has two bastions of factional power in adjacent systems. The idea that someone is forced to live out of the back of a Jump Freighter, moving their ships around constantly in order to get anything done, just doesn't hold water, and much less in our own warzone.
With as many people as are out having fun right now, taking plexes, getting kills, seizing space, getting solo fights, small gang fights, as well as big fleet battles, and just about every activity in between, the argument that these changes have killed one activity or another dwindle every day. For every pilot that says "I can't do this anymore" there's a half dozen others that are doing exactly that, and having fun at the same time.
That doesnt mean FW is in a perfect place, it doesn't mean there aren't problems, and it doesn't mean anyone's about to stop improving the system. But this notion that station docking has crippled anyone or anything is going to need some actual evidence before either the CSM or CCP take the complaints seriously. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
176
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 12:42:00 -
[78] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote: +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time. The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking.
Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond. Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor.
With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general. Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested).
System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent
The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky. Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues. |
Fidelium Mortis
Quantum Cats Syndicate
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 18:50:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Hey folks, Just a quick update on this; there are good ideas thrown so far, some stuff we like:
- Reducing manufacturing / research times for jobs in upgraded systems
- Increasing numbers of slots given in upgraded systems further, 5 max is nothing to write home about
- Moving the docking-lockout from being automatic when system is captured to level 3 upgrade and higher
- Reducing repair costs in upgraded systems
- Reducing refining costs in upgraded systems
- Iterating at the I-hub bleed out next to captured sites
- Bringing back the cyno jammer, but make sure its use is very short by nature not to totally lockout the system - again this needs to be carefully designed
- Think again on how to upgrade systems that have no stations
Thanks for your time and ideas people!
Would you consider converting the bunkers into a POS-like structure that has some rudimentary services like a repair facility, LP store, and fitting array? No docking functionality needed, and if there's storage options, have all items dropped/destroyed when the bunker is destroyed. This will make non-station systems somewhat desirable. The bunker should remain without cover to discourage using it as a central base of operation, and services should be tied to system levels. This way, all systems can be upgraded into a temporary forward base.
Cyno jammers would be a nice addition, though I think it should temporarily block all traffic, and require a significant investment to bring online/use.
ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2424
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 19:49:00 -
[80] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote: +1 for this Idea. I don't think anyone but the tiny, vocal minority still is against station lockouts. Having that absolute penalty does give much more impetus to the willingness to plex, and that is what has been driving the fights lately. The problem with upgrades is that, at least on the Gallente front, upgrades are too easily stripped away. It's become a meaningless isk sink that can be undone with a few t1 frigs and some time. The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking. Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond. Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor. With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general. Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested). System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky. Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues.
Thanks, Veshta, for the good post! I also like the idea of a passive decontesting of plexes in theory, but I hadn't put much though into discussing / promoting this as I always though this favored those who already owned space too much, and made it more difficult for the underdog to slowly chip away and make progress.
My fear is that it will increase the pew pew during an actual system takeover (must be done in one big risky push like you pointed out) but not do anything to encourage small gangs or solo pilots from reaping the benefits of their casual roaming and plexing, other than the LP payout itself. At least under the current system, taking a plex here and there (if you can't log on for very long) has some lasting impact, instead of plexing only affecting warzone control when your faction can do enough of it to flip a system in a single effort.
There is an intriguing idea being proposed in F & I about reversing defensive and offensive plexing, and tying warzone control to LP payout multipliers instead of pricing multipliers. In other words, the advantage for holding space is that you could run plexes in your own systems and earn LP for doing so, and the advantage for taking space is that it increases your payouts when you do earn LP. This way there is a real incentive to own and upgrade systems, not just incentive to seize a system with no reason to actually keep it. The underdog wouldn't have to go outside their own space and risk station lockout in order to earn an income, but they could risk doing so if they wanted to profit more for their efforts.
Otherwise, I fear we'll continue to see what we have now where factions intentionally lose space in order to have more ability to earn LP, which is kind of backwards conceptually. Only rewarding the system transfer itself (instead of in the keeping of space) may not be sustainable in the long run, and lean to intentional system trading instead of a real battle to protect your own sovereign territory.
Something for everyone to stop by and consider at least, should make for a good discussion assuming everyone keeps things civil and constructive. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
180
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 04:33:00 -
[81] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Thanks, Veshta, for the good post! I am not completely irrational you know, just disillusioned
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:My fear is that it will increase the pew pew during an actual system takeover (must be done in one big risky push like you pointed out) but not do anything to encourage small gangs or solo pilots from reaping the benefits of their casual roaming and plexing, other than the LP payout itself. Easily sorted with what was suggested earlier: Diminishing returns. The more downtrodden a side is, the less VP it needs to flip a system just as the dominatrix would need more to increase her holdings.
Aah, good old Susan Black .. she spams ideas almost as much as I do Will read/respond a little later, but sounds like it might work with some tweaking.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Something for everyone to stop by and consider at least, should make for a good discussion assuming everyone keeps things civil and constructive. F&I threads are generally very constructive, it is the Warfare&Tactics (aka. COAD of FW) that is a cesspool |
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
364
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 18:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sir Francis Drake effect - FW pilots and ONLY FW pilots ratting in an upgraded system get increased returns on repairing high sec security standings. Be welcomed home by the queen |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
460
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 20:15:00 -
[83] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: The station lockouts have done more to reduce the pvp than increase it. And do you have any statistical basis for this, either?.
No, no one does. This is why your cry that we can "wait for the data" was a dumb idea when so many variables changed. The only thing I know is I did not fight for raa because I couldn't dock near it. I also know I spent allot of my eve time moving crap around instead of fighting. And that was due to the station lock outs.
Other than that we have to just try to use logic as to whether forcing people to go several jumps to get in new ships increases pvp or decreases it.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: There are 2 fronts Caldari/gallente and Minmatar/amarr.
CCP should just let one front keep the lock out rule and remove the lockout rule from the other front. This idea just seems silly. CCP is not going to make game design decisions just to cater to personal taste. Having special rules for one warfront just for the sake of being different than the other would be incredibly hard to justify, I sincerely doubt you'll ever reach ANY kind of player consensus over which warzone should have lockout or shouldn't. The Caldari / Gallente warfront involves FAR more multi-jump travel and it is currently teeming with small gang roams. The Amarr / Minmatar front is the most compact, most connected to highsec, and has two bastions of factional power in adjacent systems. The idea that someone is forced to live out of the back of a Jump Freighter, moving their ships around constantly in order to get anything done, just doesn't hold water, and much less in our own warzone. .
Says the Minmatar who didn't have to move a thing.
CCP never got any player concensus to implement the no docking rule why do we need one to decide what faction war front drops it? If someone is convinced that the no docking rule is so wonderfull they can go fight in that front. There is nothing wrong with giving players more options.
And what are you talking about cater to personal taste? If you mean cater to players, well I don't think its silly for ccp to cater to the players to some extent. Several do not like the station lock out. Its not just me.
This would actually be the only way we could see how the no docking rule effects pvp. It would be the only different rule between the 2 factions. I think you know that.
Why make all the rules exactly the same for both? Even while at war parties have contact with eachother. Perhaps the relations between one set of factions is worse than relations between another set leading to the no docking rule even in privately owned stations.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: With as many people as are out having fun right now, taking plexes, getting kills, seizing space, getting solo fights, small gang fights, as well as big fleet battles, and just about every activity in between, the argument that these changes have killed one activity or another dwindle every day. For every pilot that says "I can't do this anymore" there's a half dozen others that are doing exactly that, and having fun at the same time.
That doesnt mean FW is in a perfect place, it doesn't mean there aren't problems, and it doesn't mean anyone's about to stop improving the system. But this notion that station docking has crippled anyone or anything is going to need some actual evidence before either the CSM or CCP take the complaints seriously.
Sigh
I am not against "these changes" I am against the no docking change. You, of course, know that but you are just trying to misrepresent my views to make me seem extreme.
No one said station lock outs "crippled" anything. It has reduced the amount of pvp that would have occured if it was not implemented. I told you my experience of having to spend hours upon hours moving stuff around in space instead of pvping. Perhaps you don't believe me. I gave you logical arguments as to why it decreased pvp in the case of raa and in general but you don't need to listen.
Perhaps you are only interested in hearing from your minmatar friends like susan and telling them what a great idea she has when she proposes changes that pretty blatantly help minmatar. Sorry but everytime you casually dismiss concerns raised by the amarr who started inferno down 59-11 and only champion what your minmatar want your claim of not being biased loses credibility.
Finally the test is not how many people leave null sec to come and do faction war. If they made all of faction war space entirely null sec I am sure lots of people would come. Nor is the test how many high sec carebears come here to plex.
The question is does the no docking rule expand the sandbox or does it narrow it? If the numbers of subscribers goes up significantly and stays up after these changes then they are expanding it. If the numbers go significantly down and stay down they narrowed it. If they don't change significantly they are just shifting sand around. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
265
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:12:00 -
[84] - Quote
When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn. C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 01:33:00 -
[85] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:The reason why plexing has gone through the roof is that people are being paid like robber barons for their time now .. has very little to do with docking. Not sure if putting it at level 3 is "good", perhaps 2 or even 1 is better .. have to run the numbers .. should be hard enough for an assault to take an effort before opening up stations and give defence a reasonable time to respond. Reason why I support lock-outs as part of the upgrade path is that it will effectively remove the ability of a single faction from dominating through alts .. if enemy is allowed to plex in a system you had damn well better be there to kick his ass or he will breed like Brutor. With regards to upgrades being a massive sink .. we have been discussing this elsewhere and the idea of awarding a partial "repair amount" from defensive plexes is gaining traction .. as is the idea of some kind of reward for defensive work in general. Example: Enemy takes a medium thus knocking off 8750LP (50% of 17.5k) of the upgrade pool. He is discovered and killed/bought/run off and defensive crews take the minor and major , repairing half of what the same sites would have caused in damage (25% of 10k+25k = 8750LP) and in the process get the same amount (25%) of the LP value of the sites (provided system is contested). System should be fashioned in such a way that defensive work feels like a necessity (worthwhile upgrades, keeping enemy from docking) while not feeling like work .. since the timer system makes it feel like work, some kind of compensation is in order .. doesn't have to huge as defence is a newcomer/alt occupation except when enemy is insistent The thread in Warfare-Tactics on the topic of plexes and NPCs is gravitating towards the idea of plex timers automatically resetting over time when no enemy is present. Benefit of such a system is that defenders get to focus on killing/evicting the attackers who in turn will never have to experience the glory of the speed-bumped plex (timer run to a few seconds) .. this idea alone has the potential to create enormous amounts of pew as one can't just plex a bit everywhere and pick up the next day in whichever system wasn't decontested .. also makes the multi-pronged attacks a lot more valuable and risky. Note: With such a system there will/should be no rewards for defensive work of any sort .. to control space, you have to patrol space or invest in tissues.
Plexing for rewards is barely driving any PVP. The people who are there to farm plexes run when they see anyone on short scan. The fights are happening around station systems like Hallanen and Oto and Oicx, systems with strategic value because of their stations, and that's where the actual fights are. There's been a lot of good ideas as to how to fix plexing but as yet I haven't seen anything concrete from CCP that acts on any of them. Would love some push back from CCP devs, preferably questions about possible/suggested fixes that they're thinking about. Help us help you help us :). |
Alto Hopix
Interstellar Steel Templis Dragonaors
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:30:00 -
[86] - Quote
I was thinking changing/expanding the current choice of bonuses for system upgrades. You could have different 'sets' of 3 upgrades.
For example the 3 we have currently could be known as "general set"
We could have for example a "defensive set", were instead of industry, clones and market bonus, you get stuff like improved gate guns, faction police presence and infrastructure hub EHP increase for example.
There could be and economy set, an offensive set, etc. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:57:00 -
[87] - Quote
Deen Wispa wrote:When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn. Gotta hand it to the Caldari, that is a bloody genius way of gaming the system .. hahahahahahahaha. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
278
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:25:00 -
[88] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Deen Wispa wrote:When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn. Gotta hand it to the Caldari, that is a bloody genius way of gaming the system .. hahahahahahahaha. Everybody was thinking about doing this. The Caldari were the first to implement it. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2511
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:27:00 -
[89] - Quote
We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".
One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.
In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.
Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
463
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:37:00 -
[90] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".
One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.
In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.
Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?
IMO it is working well right now.
It is difficult to defend lots of space now because you do not receive lp for defense. This means the best way to defend a system is to actually prevent plexes from being taken in the first place - i.e., pvp. Because if you just sit back and let the enemy take the plex you are in effect punished with having to orbit a button for no gain.
Since you need to aggressively defend your systems before the plexes are taken it is much easier if you have fewer systems to cover.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
|
|
|
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 |