|
|
| Author |
Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
    |
Posted - 2007.09.14 15:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
If you haven't seen it yet, head over to our Dev Blog and read War is Divine, a Dev Blog on Factional Warfare by Ginger. As you can see there we'd like to have your thoughts and ideas on Factional Warfare in this thread, so post away!
Wrangler
Community Manager
EVE Online
Contact Support - Contact Moderators - Report Bug - Submit News Leads - Knowledge Base
Player Guide - Policies - Join ISD - Fan Submissions - DevFinder LiteV |
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 16:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
 Originally by: Tharrn
If you want to make it the awesome version then please, please, please make it so that someone who has ****ed off a faction enough can no longer dock at their stations. Nothing turns me off as much as supposed enemies of Amarr being based out of the Emperor Family Station in Amarr...
This has been a hot topic of discussion here. There are alot of problems with denying docking rights to someone and the fact that the empires seem to have allowed each other to set up stations in their sovereign space is somewhat of an issue. But yes, its being discussed.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 16:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?
Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P
It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 16:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Originally by: Arabian Goggle
Please make factional warfare reasonably accessible to the solo player. Small gangs are fun but you canFt argue with the community: Many of the most popular eve videos are solo pvp action. Many of the most popular ships are ships that are versatile enough to engage in solo pvp. Of course you also have the multitudes of solo or semi-solo (read main and alt) players who run missions in empire.
There will be nothing to stop you solo PvP'ing in Factional Warfare, its going to be a freeform system. You will certainly be able to join it as a solo player and go around shooting people in the face as a solo player, you can even attempt to do the objectives as a solo player.
However, others will be trying to stop you by.. well.. shooting you in the face.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 16:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Originally by: Shadowsword
"Opposing Faction navies will take a sudden dislike to you fighting for their enemies. The pansies who currently take you on will most likely get fired and replaced with people who know how to shoot.
There will be no "PvP lite"."
Will there be gradual levels of hostility between, say, a casual FW player who want ot try it out without seeing half of the high-sec closed to him, and a crazy hardcore genocidal berzerk FW player?
Not in the current design, no. We are still discussing what kind of penalties towards enemy factions joining up will entail, but you should be able to join up, try it out for a short while and then leave without taking too much of a hit (note I said this is still under revision), however longer term fighters will find that the enemy faction progressively hates their guys alot more.
But, this system is a hot one and will be revised before release.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 17:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Originally by: Acacia Everto
Edited by: Acacia Everto on 14/09/2007 16:57:30
Will it be similar to the tournament in that you pick a faction to fight for, and gain standing/LP towards them? And also, will factional warfare include just PvE, or both PvE and PvP in that you fight against those who say sponsored the Amarr Empire which is at war with the Minmatar whom you sponsored? If so, do you gain standing/LP for killing people who sponsored your opposing faction?
The current design is strongly PvP-centric - there are PvE elements, but the focus is on small gangs of fighters running around beating the snot out of each other for king and country (or equivalent).
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 17:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Originally by: Tempest Kane
Edited by: Tempest Kane on 14/09/2007 17:10:59
Will factional low sec stations be conqurable by a corporation or alliance who decides to support/fight for an opposed faction of said station owning faction?
If so i see a strong use and incentive for 0.0 groups to take part and secure low-sec hub points for logistical reasons + cyno nets to empire useing the pos/portaling system.
I think it is important to maintain an Empire area were new players can grow, however i feel eve has evolved to a point were we should start to receede the borders of empire and allow the domination of low sec by the major powers, it opens up a new area of space for smaller corporations to take and operate in without perhaps the mass benefit of 0.0 but with the security of a home they can invest in building up.
Its time for the sandbox to expand inwards.
The initial release is definitely not intended as a tool to give 0.0 Alliances more power/influence in lowsec. Maybe at some point in the future Alliances will be able to attack the Empires directly, but for now this isn't part of the game plan.
Originally by: Rainhailer
Would there be any chance of getting factions (such as Mordus and the Jovians) to take part, and if they get enough player support, maybe carve out sovereignty for themselves in some other faction's space?
Also, will there be any possibility of 0.0 pirate factions getting involved and taking space from the empire factions?
I'm asking because I remember reading in a previous devblog that system security status could be altered, and I think I saw that borders could change.
Plus I'd love to fight for the Jovians or Mordus, pwn some Caldaris =)
The plan is definitely to bring at least some 0.0 factions into the fold in future, although this won't be part of the initial release. Jove, though? Unlikely.
|
|
|
Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
Forum Moderator
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 11:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
an of course if you want to see the rest of that saying quoted at the bottom of the dev blog its in its entirety in my sig 
- Thanks Hutch.
____
forum rules | mods@ccpgames.com
tWar is not the dreadful end to all things as mankind fears. Conflict brings balance to nature as it adapts, mutates, and transforms itself into something stronger than before. Mankind is the master of nature because we can choose those mutations on our own accord. We can accelerate the inevitable dominance of a species. Through war, we can make ourselves stronger at the time and place of our choosing. War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine.v
- Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum, excerpt from a commencement speech to Paladin graduates of the Imperial Academy, 23215 AD |
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Originally by: Adhar Khorin
Has there been any consideration toward allowing a FW pilot to "call in support" from the faction navy to defend sovereign space?
The amount of support (ie, NPC naval vessels) that you'd be able to call in would depend on your standing, and could also cost standing and/or LP to (literally) call in the favor. It would also introduce one hell of an element of surprise when you're defending your own turf. Invaders see small gang, engage said gang, and then NPC navy shows up to the party.
Actually there have been discussions and designs written up about NPC wingmen, which is basically what you are saying here but with a little more functionality tied in. Im going to dig it up and check it out, thanks!
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:25:00 -
[10] - Quote
Originally by: Helison
Some random thoughts:
*) About stations: It has to be possible that NPC-stations are taken over by other NPC-factions. In addition to this I&d like to see Interbus implemented first. Interbus could move all your goods (and your corp goods including worthy BPOs) to a friendly station, if the station changes the owner.
When you say, take over the station, how do you mean? Convert a minmatar one to an amarr one for example? There are also agents in stations which people will be wanting to use, docking rights?
Currently we are still considering the whole station/docking rights hotch potch so no, nothing decided on this atm.
Personally I like the idea of Interbus but it needs careful balancing and consideration, however if we were going to close of stations to people then yes, I would say we would need a system like this implemented.
Originally by: Helison
*) While activly fighting for a faction, it should be NOT possible to use the hostile stations. But after end of the fighting it should be possible to dock again within 2-4 weeks.
I appreciate the sentiment but its better if you back these things up with solid reasoning, however I agree with the basic principal that factional warfare should have an effect, but one that can be regained with some hard work. However, like I say, the whole docking issue is up in the air so proposed systems are all being considered.
Originally by: Helison
*) Standings: It should be possible to regain all your lost standings and fight for the opposing faction, but it should be quite difficult to really change the faction. But it should be "quite" easy to regain as much standing to be able to travel again in the regions of the former enemy.
Weeeell, you see, if you have say, -8 towards Amarr this pretty much means you have blown hundreds of their ships away. They dont like you, your pretty much in their top bad arse list of people they dont like. It doesnt make any sesne that they would let you dock at their stations but nethertheless! But, in principle a system that would let you, over a considered period of time, be able to regain dog eaten standings should be considered. However, while the Amarr hate you, the minnies will like you no doubt, so you can still partipate in factional warfare, just not for the side that hates you guts.
Originally by: Helison
*) Factional warfare has to be interesting also for veterans!
Its going to be interesting for everyone, new players and vets included. This is EVE and its open after all.
Originally by: Helison
*) It should NOT be rewarding to bring 300+ players to win an objective. This could also be achieved more easily if you provide many but small objectives instead of single, bigger ones.
Yup, were aiming towards small gangs and making objectives more rewarding to be done in such a way, and obviously, this is one such way of doing so, but it wont be enough by itself, but we have a plan (tm).
Originally by: Helison
*) Logistical ops are a must. "Hey this viator is supplying the enemy with ammunition! Shoot it!"
Id like to hear more about ideas for such things, as well as ideas for having industry and such like in factional warfare, we have some cool ideas but id like to hear from you all about this aspect as well.
|
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Originally by: Tsumik
I agree I would really like to see more use of factional ships (which I think I read before somewhere they'll be fixed). And I really think there should be something that sort of pushes people to use ships that coralate to their respective races. Ie. fighting for the Amarr should pushs you or perhaps not penalize you from flying other race ships.
Well, we like the idea of racial fleets but this has its inherent problems in itself. And were not to keen on the idea of penalizing people for flying other races ships. But obviously were thinking of handing out rewards and the LP store is a good way of doing this, but would be tied and balanced towards factional warfare. And it would only make sense in this store to have some kind of faction ships, whether new ones or existing ones remains to be seen. But these will definitely be racial, Amarr arent going to reward you with Minamtar ships :) Fendhal is our man in Amsterdam as far as all this goes but it hasnt been hammered out.
Originally by: Tsumik
I also think besides the small gang battles, the parts that really get me about historacal games is large scale battles happening and being a small part of that battle. And nothing so grand as "if I don't complete this objective the rest of the fleet won't be able to do their parts" but more like "if I can take out this outpost battery the fleet can have a slight edge fighting in this system" I think alot of games make the play so super heroic that they alone determine the way the battle goes. It would be fun if there was big push battles like into a system and you were put into various fronts/objectives by some sort of factional fleet commander. And the faster you complete your small objective the faster someone else in the same battle can complete their part.
I like the way you think and we want to integrate a campaign system into the whole deal and putting tactical objectives into it. We dont know how far we can take this but this is one of the areas we really looking for some input and funk on.
Originally by: Tsumik
It would be also cool to be part of "covert/black ops" type missions where the faction lets you borrow special modules or ships for just that mission and then they take it back afterwards. This would potentially give some more coolness to factional warfare by allowing you to use ships/modules that are only in factional warfare.
Otherwise good job guys look forward to it!
Borrowing ships is a bit of a pain in the ass mechanics wise. Being rewarded ships that you can only fly why you participate in factional warfare is somewhat easier.
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Originally by: Jezala
So what happens when we have a situation where the Amarr empire is kicking the snot out of the Minmitar Republic and defeating them at every engagement? How is the progress of the war manifested in the universe? What happens when one faction "wins" over the others?
I guess what I'm really asking is: does the outcomes of the factional warfare fights result in meaningful change of the EVE universe or is it just some prearranged fights that impacts your faction standing?
Currently we forssee battles over low sec systems, fighting can occur everywhere but low sec will be the focal point of the too and fro initially.
If one side is beating the snot out of the other, then there beating the snot out of the other, but controlling more systems may mean that they become progressively harder to control, alternatively, maybe they dont and you just get what you get. What do you think?
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 17:48:00 -
[13] - Quote
Originally by: TJ17
it would be nice to see factional warfare more then just missions/cosmos as in other empires can take over others station like gallante taking caldari stations and so on. it should be based on how many people do the factional warefare in order for station change or something other then a boring pos siege deal you should also expand it to high sec aswell since it is faction vs faction and not just a battle for low sec.
It will defintely not be just another COSMOS or some funky missions. But we are wanting to start it off mainly concentrated in low sec as its the perfect place for such a fight, over the border regions. But later on we will look at expanding the main scrap into other areas.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 18:53:00 -
[14] - Quote
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Pretty please avoid making great good versus evil war (amarr+caldari vs minmatar+gallente).
I have to stop you here and point out that there is no good and evil in EVE, you have 4 factions each with multiple facets to their nature but each could, in the given context or view, be thought of as good and evil. However, things are more complex than that
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Let it have more political complexity, with NPC corporation-level conflicts inside factions, occasional conflicts with "friendly" faction corps and so on and so on. In Eve background, NPC corps always had shareholders and competitors, lets use this information so we can choose to fight in wars more like in Cyberpunk then in Middlearth :) Naturally, people working for navy/fleet or goverment corps, and all other - time to time, would still take part in the great national war.
While bringing in intrigue and infighting in factional warfare is alluring, we are more likely to try to bring this in via some storytelling functionality than have players declare for corporations within an alliance. At least for the first release of factional warfare.
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Edited for more;
Reward for flying the "right" faction ships would be really nice. Nothing to affect ship parameters, my Gallente ship will not start to hate me for flying for the Emperor. Buf FW NPCs may do so. For example they can give me less FW rewards if I used non-Amarr ship in fight - "We had to edit your godless gallentish ship from our propaganda holoreels, what would this do to our peoples morale if they've seen our pilots prefer foreign ships over our superior and blessed technology? We do not like that.".
What this ends up doing is penalizing people for flying the ships they have trained for, if they are not their racial type. While im all for racial diversity im not sure how much or if we want to force it in this context. But I do like the vision of people all flying the racial ships of that faction, im just not sure its something thats pratical to implement.
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Idea for industrialists;
Allow industrialists to get FW patriotism points or whatevers by donating ships and equipment for the country. Somehow make them exposed to enemy pvp attack at least once on the way (maybe let them donate ships in some plex that can be attacked etc).
This way industrial characters can get whatever bonuses FW gives if they can manage to get protection etc.
Rather than donating ships and stuff, id rather try to get them more integrally based by building and mining and hauling for that faction, so supply becomes as important as the fight, and you can hurt people by killing their supply chains etc. That way bringing them right into the crux of it all and forcing others to protect them and such things as that.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 19:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
They are under our consideration, theres always been a plan to allow people to declare on factional alliances, but im really not sure whether we will get this in the first release.
Id rather see the four empires at war, and get that balanced and working as we all know what happens to the best laid ideas once they hit thousands of players. After that we will be in a better place to open up the ball park.
But I will get to the points, were trying to work through everyone but its the weekend and im just off down the pub. Will write more soon!
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 18:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 16/09/2007 18:03:53
Right.
On calling in support from factional navies: ideas like this are why we have threads like this No, we haven't talked about it yet, but I think now we will 
On industrial FW: this is something we very much want, but the trick will be designing a system where it has an impact, but not an overwhelming one. Nobody wants to haul stuff all over lowsec and generate no discernible effect, but equally nobody wants to be hugely penalised because some other guy screwed up his hauling run or what have you. This will need thought and balance.
On forcing people to fly the "right" ships: it's an appealing idea, but I think it ends up being counterproductively restrictive. As has been pointed out though, don't expect to get equipment for Minmatar ships from the Amarr! The biggest problem with this sort of approach though is just that balance work is done on the basis that gangs contain a mix of races, and rebalancing everything to accommodate single-race gangs would both be a massive workload and create undesirable knock-on effects for the game as a whole.
On how difficult it should be to join/leave/change sides: it's interesting to see that both ends of the spectrum are very much in evidence here. In general, we're currently looking at lowish barriers for entry and a flexible but not lax 'toggle' (as in, you won't be signing yourself and your children away forever by any stretch of the imagination, but equally you won't just be in for a few hours and out again). The issue of changing sides, recovering deep negative standing etc is a more difficult one (and one that affects EVE as a whole, not just the FW area) and one we're still discussing. We're still big on actions having consequences, so don't expect it to ever become easy, but it may get a little easier.
On small gangs: as mentioned in the other thread, we're experimenting with the possibility of rate of rewards not scaling with player count - bringing more people does not mean you'll "win" faster.
On docking: the feedback is good The idea of disabling services and/or making them cost more is an interesting one. We're going to need to discuss this more though I think. Fun fact: there are around 1500 stations where the faction of the corp owning them and the faction owning the space are not the same.
On fighting for nobody: this will very probably be possible - as I mentioned in the other thread it makes little sense to design a mechanic encouraging PvP and then arbitrarily telling groups of PvPers they can't get involved.
On declaring war on FW organisations: very probably very easy to do if you so wish.
On entire alliances signing up: this is a very sticky point and one we're still working at. In theory yes, we'd love for alliances to be able to sign up. In practice, EVE has two containers - the corp, which holds players, and the alliance, which holds corps. We don't have a container for alliances as of yet, which makes alliance-level signups difficult to say the least.
On ranks: ranks are cool
On rewards: the intention is that it will be self-sustaining - if you want to PvP in FW, you can just PvP, without having to run missions to make money on the side (provided you're prepared to be reasonable frugal in your setups). However, we're not looking to give people a way to sustain non-FW PvP without any work, as we don't want to mess with the balance there. Hitting the right point here may require fine-tuning. Also, tags and corpses people, tags and corpses. We have evil plans.
|
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 18:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Edited by: CCP Greyscale on 16/09/2007 18:04:25
On world-shaping: we're still evaluating what's feasible, but we want warzones, and we want them to be at least reasonably dangerous
On backing up assertions with arguments: this makes it much easier to judge whether you're onto something important, or just letting off steam Number one design question is "yes, but WHY?"
On changing technical fundamentals: we don't want to use a lot of programmer time changing fundamental systems to achieve relatively small effects. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff works on assumptions made half a decade ago. Destroying stations or having them switch owners on a regular basis, for example, is something we want to avoid if possible, as it would likely soak up a lot of programming time we could use for other things.
On niche playstyles: where we can accommodate niche playstyles with relative ease, we will likely do so if we can identify them (apologies again to Es and Whizz). Where we have to bend over backwards and dedicate significant development time to small groups of players, it's less likely we will do so - see previous comment about allocation of developer time.
On Ginger replying before me: I was replaying BG&E yesterday.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 17:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
Originally by: Sophia Eve
Factional Warfare is definitely sounding nice, but I'm worried about what kind of standings prerequisites are going to be necessary, especially for veteran players who already have factional standings pretty well stuck the way they are. What about players who, by way of where their corporation operates, ended up raising their standings with the enemies of their native race. Are they forced to fight for their "enemies"?
I havent got any problems with not being able to fight for people that you have bad standings towards, simply because to get those bad standings you have had to blow ten tons of crap out of their ships, those poor crews, in space assets etc. So this is fine.
The only hole I see is there is no way to regain standings past a certain point but this needs looking at in a wider context.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 18:02:00 -
[19] - Quote
Originally by: Svetlana Scarlet
One note -- Ginger, you say in your blog that it will allow participation on a corporate or individual level, but what about on an alliance level? This would seem kind of imperative for entities like the CVA, Electus Matari, the Acheron Federation, and the Apex Conglomerate. I can certainly see how this could have been an oversight, but it's something that definitely needs to get addressed.
In the current design their is no mechanic for whole alliances joining factional warfare. However due to the additional time we have on this were going to be looking at ways to incorporate it effectively.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 18:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi
#2 Faction-influence on the market. I think it's already a bit annoying that it's hard to see who's selling and buying, that you can't avoid selling your goodies to your enemies or vice-versa. I hope CCP will implement something for this in Factional Warfare. An extra button that you don't want to sell towards people that have negative standings towards your faction/corporation or someone that is at war. Let stuff you can't buy because the sellers don't want you to appear in orange-red or something. Perhaps even let the station-owner (which could be a npc faction, but perhaps a 0.0 alliance too) enforce it, so there isn't stuff that can be sold to foes of the station-owner. Let trading for someone that has a history of fighting for the Federation be totally impossible in Caldari space.
So basically, were talking here that you can set a standing against a sell/buy order? And anyone below that standing will not be able to purchase your goods? This sounds like a feasable and somewhat fun idea to me, im going to have a word with the guys about it
Originally by: Nuyan Zahedi
#4 Having npc navies patrolling systems and jumping through stargates. I think Eve currently sometimes already feels a bit empty and "dead", especially for a newcomer. You've rats in belts/gates, there is often some patrolling at stargates and there is ofcourse some trader npc's flying from station to station inside a system. But for as far as I know npc's actually don't use stargates.
I like the idea for the sheer immersiveness of it all to be quite honest. Patrols and beefing up convoys and making convoys more integral to factional warfare is something that we should do. Your right tho, currently NPC's are restricted to in system, however, nothing is impossible as they say.
|
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 22:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
Oh one thing we missed was that the standings requirements wont be against every individual in the corp, just the corporation as a whole.
The rest of the posts we will try to reply to tomorrow if we can. Thanks for the feedback and ideas guys, keep them coming please!
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 09:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Another quicky, i think your all assuming that we are going to require some kind of super high standing that to join factional warfare. This simply will not be the case so dont panic people :)
The number we had entertained to join FW was 1.0 standing towards faction. Of course this is subject to change and review but its a number we are happy with atm.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.18 13:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
Originally by: Telemicus Thrace
Hmmm, well speaking as a role-player I have a bit of a quandry. Telemicus Thrace is regarded as a traitor to the Republic for helping Karishal Muritor. Aside from being a member of the Ushra'Khan my external loyalties are to the Thukker tribe.
To reflect this I have been working on my standings with the Thukker and plan to continue doing so. However the Republic has low standings to the Thukker. I of course want to help bring the Slaver Empire to it's knees but at the same time I do not wish to serve Midular nor lose standing with the Thukker.
Will this be an issue? will I just have to pony up the now sizable ISK to war dec loads of people? How long before fringe factions like the Thukker get involved?, assuming they would to some degree fight the Amarr?
We have every intention of expanding this outwards, but for the initial release we are planning on just the four empires. We've always wanted to get the other factions involved and I can see us doing this after the initial release.
Of course, there is nothing to stop you from signing up to fight for the Republic and still denounce Midular and get to shoot slavers at the same time. The Republics not going to hate you unless you start killing their ships.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 13:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.
On the controversial subject of docking rights. I'm not surprised this has reared its head but I'm not going to outright oppose it.
What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.
The thing you have to understand is that if you want to go up against the Empires without the support of another Empire behind you then this is a very big thing. The Empires are truly epic behemoths of power. Declaring war on one means you are taking on more than you can probably handle, your are taking on the man and the man has very big guns indeed.
So therefore, while we are looking into allowing players to declare on a faction without saying they will fight for so and so, will come with alot of deficits and not many benefits.
While I understand why you would want to do this given your RP background, and I would like to allow you to do this. Other entities may well want to do the same but without the same RP focus they may well decide to declare for a faction just to get to shoot the others in the face.
However, in the future we may change this, perhaps the Empire strength will decline or they will be too busy with each other to allow capsuleers to come and attempt to wrest a bit of control off them but for the first release, it will be a hard slog fighting an Empire without the support of another.
But we are looking into it and were going to see what we can play around with and come up with.
|
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 13:55:00 -
[25] - Quote
Originally by: Guomindong
# The aggregate of loyalty points in any low-sec system gained each day is summed and system sovereignty goes to the NPC force that has aquired the most loyalty points.
# System sovereignty spawns 0.0 quality gate rats of the type that holds sovereignty, and 0.0 belt rats of the type that are enemies of the faction that holds sovereignty.
# System sovereignty turns on/off agents of the apropriate type in the area.
.
While not the LP model you envisage here we had something similar in mind with objectives and such, which is a bit more direct.
But the rats defending conquered systems is certainly a rather cool idea, while their have been suggestions of NPC wingmen and that might be cool, having factional navies wondering about attempting to help secure the space your fighting around in might work quite well. I would like to expand upon this idea with patrols and sentries perhaps?
|
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |