| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
    |
Posted - 2007.09.16 12:27:00 -
[121] - Quote
Idea for FW logistics:
You mentioned that it'd be possible to release ships (or other items) that can only be flown for FW activities (post #88). Based around that concept, a few ideas for industrialists spring to mind.
1) OK, so you have your battlefront. You have FW directing a bunch of Amarr players to a certain hot spot (and Minmatar the same). A particular station in the area is offering to build (for the purpose of FW as above) Faction Battleships and such to give to participating players.
However, for every Battleship the faction gives out, a material order has to be fulfilled. That is, there are special "contracts" (through the agent system) that make players ship large amounts of minerals and trade goods to the station. Once each allotted amount of materials has been fulfilled (spanning not one but several agent missions per batch) a ship can be given out (through whatever mechanism you decide to do that).
Therefore blowing up these player haulers directly effects how many of these special FW faction ships your team will be facing. disrupting logistics directly effects the outcome of the battle.
2) (AKA: "1) Lite"). Each FW hotspot could have a stockpile of supplies and equipment (faction ammo, named modules, discount ship repair service, etc.) for sale only to signed up FW participants. As above, the quantity of these items (or price of these services) will be directly effected by the amount of materials brought in by hauling missions.
While in conventional warfare there is a vital role for hauler pilots to bring in ships and modules to distribute in a warzone, in factional warfare they'll be doing exactly the same thing- except instead of bringing in the actual ammo and modules themselves, they'll be bringing in the materials (mineral / tradegoods / mission items) which will magically turn in to named faction ammo and modules on site.
Again, braving the lawless frontier to bring materials to the front line will directly effect the outcome of the battle, and disrupting this service will directly effect the effectiveness of ones enemy.
3) Following the "hauling for stuffs" format of the above two suggestions, there is a new dynamic that can be considered. Presumably, in the event of an all out war between factions, there are going to be more than just pod pilots involved. We should expect to see representatives of the Empires' large conventional (i.e. NPC) navies camping the hotspots too.
There are two obvious ways to apply this- the first is to create NPC wingmen who can be bought / rented / borrowed from the factions to accompany you in your conquesting. The second is to simply see an increase in quantity and quality of Navy NPCs camping certain areas (such as gates and stations, and even roaming belts) and shooting FW participants.
The industrialists are involved in this much the same way as above- they are expected to ship in materials under missions to the low-sec stations. When certain quotas are reached, there is either an increase in Navy mobs camping areas for FW participants, or there is an increase in availability / quality / decrease in price of NPC wingmen to be hired.
Shooting the haulers will mean a direct decrease in strength of NPC enemies.
[out of characters, woh  )
------
 Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts!
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 12:32:00 -
[122] - Quote
[cont.]
4) No war would be complete without it: POSs. Arguably, POS maintenance is a major industrialist profession. The construction, maintenance and refuelling of POSs is a full time job for some (and arguably no less enjoyable than any of the other seemingly tedious industrialist professions out there, and involving all manner of hauling and mining jobs of it's own).
I suggest a system of "POS Agents" in hotspot systems, whereby the agent asks you to hold a moon with a POS for an allotted amount of time (whether the player should provide their own POS or have one leant to them as part of the mission are both fine possibilities- the latter would enable more control of what the POS constitutes by the mission designers). Should the POS be successfully maintained for the allotted time, rewards (such as suggested in the above 3 suggestions) will be doled out to the fighters on that side.
The enemy will of course be encouraged to either blow up or starve out (prevent fuelling) the POS, thus causing the mission to be failed and the rewards to be denied.
Those suggestions all encourage non-combat roles in FW PvP, and give haulers and miners important ways of getting involved. They encourage the use of low-sec hauling as a way of reaping direct PvP rewards. This means they encourage attacking and destroying haulers. And this means they encourage protecting and escorting haulers, and attempting to maintain effective controls of gates and entrances (for reasons other than just "LOL ME GANKY!".
Most importantly, it gives people a way of getting involved with FW and the FW community that will undoubtedly evolve, without necessarily being a fan of PvP. Industrial corps, industrial RPers, and individuals who don't want to fly PvP alongside people they don't know all have an outlet for getting involved in the war.
------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts! |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 13:02:00 -
[123] - Quote
Originally by: Patch86
Idea for FW logistics:
You mentioned that it'd be possible to release ships (or other items) that can only be flown for FW activities (post #88). Based around that concept, a few ideas for industrialists spring to mind.
I can't believe people are running with this idea, its so arbitrary and counter intuitive to the Eve idea, which is pragmatism matters more than symbolism and fluff. We should be disabusing ourselves of such a "mechanic," not encouraging it.
Quote:
wall of text
None of this sounds fun at all tbh: navies camping, "ganking" npc haulers, and more pos management. How is this compelling when theres fertile ground for what you're describing in the player base already? If I commit to gallente navy it doesn't mean I'm going to stop going into 0.0 or running missions or pirating in low sec, but it does mean I do need to careful to avoid sloppy mistakes or the wrong route. Which is more plausible, adding in these Byzantine network of npcs or allowing players to be the main players and the main targets?
I made a similar, more elaborate post from a game design perspective a page back, read it and tell me if you still think your vision is still going in the right direction.
Despite what the devs say this is a pvp gimmick whose main goal is attracting more people to low sec first and creating a a less time consuming alternative to often fruitless 0.0 roaming second. The factional side of it is just a conceit, the caldari navy will still be a symbol in a station and a bunch of ship skins like it is now, placid will be placid and we'll all continue to go to Jita.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 13:13:00 -
[124] - Quote
I do.
You see, you make an assumption which I feel does not hold true. You assume that the only form of PvP involves 2 or more people in combat ships shooting at each other. This is simply not true.
I've made many an isk in my day as a low sec hauler, shipping either trade goods or contract material from low sec to Empire. On paper, this seems deadly dull- spreadsheets of prices and hauling. But its not. The fun part is that you've got to dodge pirate gate camps, avoid roaming gangs, scout out dangerous routes, and generally play PvP against those who want to blow you out of the sky. IT does not involve shooting backm but its still PvP.
Why shouldn't FW have an outlet for that variety of PvP? And "It's not what I like to do" is not a valid argument, seeing as you can happily ignore it and never touch it with a barge pole if you don't want. If you think its boring or a grind fest, don't do it.
------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts! |
Braise Erighani
Gallente
Galaxia Entertainment
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 13:25:00 -
[125] - Quote
My thoughts about factional warfare
So, you want to turn from a free style political playground with multi racial corporations and alliances to a realm vs realm like context?
It seem a complete change from eve philosophy. I don't like it i don't like realm vs realm play at all. It is the most boring form of pvp environment i know (well, for me at least).
I think that factional warfare isn't the way to go in eve philosophy, not in the way it has been presented so far. Maybe something more along the lines of black ops operations conducted by capsuleers on behalf of factions?
 |
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 13:43:00 -
[126] - Quote
Originally by: Patch86
I do.
You see, you make an assumption which I feel does not hold true. You assume that the only form of PvP involves 2 or more people in combat ships shooting at each other. This is simply not true.
Well, yeah three or four ships facing off is by definition pvp--when the devs say there's economic pvp and such things I think that's confusing things a bit and dismiss it as rhetoric. I'd call commerce competition yes but pvp, with the threat of ship loss and the prerequisite for gear and position, no. Does it require peculiar insights to succeed in it, sure but is it player vs player combat?
I can't concede it is because then effectively there's no limit to what you can classify is pvp, talking in local and forum warring is pvp because it has an adverse effect on others, logging into space is pvp because you occupy space and they don't, reselling goods is pvp...the list goes on but the idea of pvp just gets thinner and thinner.
I'm far from suggesting that we "nerf" anything industrial or take away anyone's gameplay tools; just to keep the combative pvp vis a vis the players as an urgent focus. The balancing act between the combat and commercial side of it is probably going to be difficult but those two themes, player centrism and fluid, traditional combat will decide whether people do it.
Invention, science and industry are all essential in the sense that they provide you tools to engage in some of the more visceral stuff but do they, in a factional warfare context, have the ability to captivate alot of people for a long time? To my mind, the answer is going to be no but its all anxious speculation at this point.
___
Eve Players are not very smart.
Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 13:55:00 -
[127] - Quote
Ah, you see I wasn't claiming "economic competition is PvP"- I'm right with you there when you say that thats just Developer rhetoric.
But there is PvP in the life of the industrialist. Low sec hauling is, by it's nature, PvP centric. Although the hauler himself has no intention to be getting in any fights, he must still compete with hostile players. There are gatecamps to traverse, station camps, roaming gangs, and so forth. His kind of PvP competition is the art of avoiding combat (that is- the art of running away). Avoiding being blown up while being chased by pirates in fast PvP ships with probes is as much PvP as blowing someone up yourself.
And whats more, it's fun. Great fun, actually. There are few things more thrilling than not getting blown up in your big expensive floating brick, through skill, talent and luck.
Including hauling objectives as part of FW brings twofold benefits tot he system. Firstly, it gives those who enjoy the risky and profitable business of low sec hauling a way to get involved, while influencing the outcome (by providing tangible benefits to the PvP force). Secondly, it gives a new objective for both sides of PvPers- both the ever venerable gate camping for expensive valuables and (for once) glory (glory in gate camping? the horror!), and for those who need to bust gate camps and secure supply lines.
In other words, it provides amply more focal points for PvP combat in FW, as well as being an outlet for other types of EVE play. And as anyone whos spent any time trading in Trade Goods will tell you, it'd be a welcome break to be able to trade things for some sort of communal purpose other than just isk grinding.
------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts! |
Liet Traep
Minmatar
Black Lance
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 14:23:00 -
[128] - Quote
One thing I would love to see. Is if you join up with a pirate faction that the stop shooting at you. Nothing sucks more than you agent running for the Sansha's Nation and you can enter their stations but if you go to an asteroid belt or a gate they try to murderize you. I'd also like maybe special stations or events for those who have a high faction. Just my .02 isk.
 |
Drachma Golea
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 14:59:00 -
[129] - Quote
I don't get the statement "Focussed in low-sec space" fully here.
We have 4 factions that will go at war at a certain time, this means to me that empire, and that includes 0.5 to 1.0 sec space also right?
Maybe someone can update me with some intel on this matter?
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge
Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 15:02:00 -
[130] - Quote
Originally by: Erotic Irony
Does it require peculiar insights to succeed in it, sure but is it player vs player combat?
pvp is short of "player versus player", not for "player versus player combat". understanding pvp as only combat, is just useful and common simplification (I use it too).
 |
|
Dr Aryandi
Hematite Rose
Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 15:57:00 -
[131] - Quote
Originally by: Ellaine TashMurkon
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 15/09/2007 20:40:58
There is one extremly cool thing that might get implemented when the war begins;
Lowsec separating empires!
2-5 systems wide area of war frontier.
This would separate markets, industrial and mission economies of NPC empires. Minerals, capital fuels, T2 equipment and components, NPC trade goods, mission stuff, research stuff, cosmos stuff.
Currently, in economy, all empire is really one place. With few exceptions, every highsec system is just X safe, AFK jumps in a freighter from Jita. Suicide gankers do not change that much.
With lowsec isolation lands of safe systems, miners, builders, inventors, and to much bigger degree - traders and pirates - will have much more intresting lives. Much much.
With tricky travel between empires, people will at last start calling this "empires" not "empire", and say "I'm selling my loot in Gallente space" rather then "I'm selling my loot in empire".
YES.
I came into my thread to suggest exactly the same thing, although with a slight twist.
I was going to suggest that there should be one or two high sec routes between Amarr/Caldari and Gallente/Minmatar - but they should be significently longer than the low sec routes.
Between Amarr/Minmatar and Gallente/Caldari though there should be at least two jumps of low security space. This should be organised carefully to ensure that there isn't just one chokepoint for pirates to camp, so people have options. You might for example have the shortest route between Jita and Rens having 5 low sec jumps, or by scouting around have 5 or 6 options for routes that involve just 2 low sec jumps.
To be honest I think Eve is getting too crowded and we need more regions everywhere, high, low, 0.0 - but this would be a start.
This could be done by just adding a few new systems to existing regions, but two new low sec regions separating the empires would be great :)
This could even be explained in RP times by trust failing between the empires so they want to establish some distance to prevent invasions. To do so they destroy the direct connecting stargates and open up a new region.
Blueprint Research Service Available
See thread for details.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 15:57:00 -
[132] - Quote
If I do not participate in factional warfare, but have a horrible standing to some empires due to standard missions, will that make me a valid target for highsec gankers of the factions that hate me?
I certainly hope not...
There is no 'n' in turret
There is no 'r' in faction
There is no 'a' in Scorpion
There is no 'e' in Caldari
There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Meldorn Vaash
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 16:33:00 -
[133] - Quote
Factional Warfare Ideas:
Close the borders to all non-native races with in a factionFs space.
Deport all non-native races to their faction space. Give the players from other factions that have moved into another factionFs space time to move there property back to thome spacev unless they have declared allegiance to the faction they have moved to. If a player does not move their property by the time open warfare is declared, it is shipped back to the playerFs starting station.
Concord or native race will assume control of tabandonedv race specific stations to maintain the trade lanes.
Concord will control border crossing systems and deny access to other faction space. Having said that, PvP raids (solo, small-gang or fleets) and/or faction warfare missions(if thatFs how the war will be) can be routed thru tcovertv jump gates or jump bridges along the border systems after a player has tpledgedv allegiance to their faction` 0.0 sec travel can still be used by anyone at anytime
If travel to another thostilev territory is needed within Empire space, Concord can issue (with a price) a neutrality pass for empire travel for tbusiness purposesv (i.e. trading, mining, mission running, etc.) with the condition that any aggressive act other than self defense or mission running, will void ConcordFs protection and the player will be subject to attack by the territoryFs faction police/navy, as well as the players themselves. Continuing on that, the next time a player wants to purchase another  pass, it will be more expensive due to the prior infraction. These passes could have a time limit on them similar to insurance on a ship with the option to renew at the end of the time.
Faction Allegiance:
Any player can establish their allegiance to any faction but they need to do so in the faction space they wish to join or maybe to a faction agent in a border system station.(Just remember to move your stuff BEFORE you join) Allegiance can have a time limit on it also equal to ship insurance` Upon declaring allegiance, the player is given a temporary -5.0 rating? to the faction you are at war with. This status will allow access to Faction Warfare specific jump gates and jump bridges along the border systems.
ThereFs my .2 ISK` love it, hate it` whatever
|
Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Fleetyards
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 16:47:00 -
[134] - Quote
I'll try to write down some more ideas that emerged over the years of Empire warfaring as brainfarts. As I am lazy it will probably be sketchy, as I just can't bring myself to write five pages :P Some of it may or may not open big cans of worms - I am sure people will poke holes into it all over. I am not sure myself how big the griefing potential would be :P I wrote it up in like 30 minutes, so don't expect miracles.
I also noticed that some of it has alreay been suggested
To start out let me say that I think this should be as sandboxy as possible, not requiring missions. Those might add to it and carry stories, but they shouldn't be the basis of it all.
Down with Concord!
For proper factional warfare I'd do away with CONCORD. Forget the security rating and go by the faction standings. The factional Navies can take over the duty of CONCORD: you **** off Amarr, their Navy hunts you. You have a -10 standing with Amarr? No entry into high-sec Amarrian space. You shoot a non-war target, non-FW participant in high-sec: a Navy response team comes to cream you just like CONCORD does now and your factional standing goes down the drain. It would certainly be tougher as security rating is so easy to raise, but don't people always tell us that actions have consequences? Right!
The joys of being 'in the Navy'
Once you sign your contract to take part in factional warfare you show as a war target for opposing FW players. If you want to keep the system open you could even make it so that you can join certain 'campaigns' directed against one faction only. Or multiple. Or all. All out war baby! Yarr, sod allies we are better than all of them anyways.
If you kill enemies (aka people taking part in factional warfare) on your hometurf your standing with your own faction increases, and the standing with the enemy faction decreases slightly. After all the daft buggers invaded our space.
If you kill enemies on their territory your own faction standing increases more and the standing with the enemy faction decreases more. For the motherland!
As you may have noticed you'll be safer in your own space :P
If your standing with a faction decreases enough you cannot enter their high-sec space anymore without being attacked by the enemy Navy (note: not the Navy response teams taking over Concord duties protecting civilians... I'd differentiate there. A large enough taskforce should be able to fight it's way into enemy territory, fending of the Navy AND enemy FW players). Basically it's like that already, but the poor Navy sods really suck hard right now.
Additionally low-standing means denial of services in enemy stations. Why should they repair an enemy or let him use the clonebay? If the standing gets bad enough they just tell you to shove off when you ask to dock. And guess what: agent runners won't be affected - if your standing with a faction is outright awfull they don't talk to you anyways :P The beauties of getting rid of CONCORD.
If your standing with a faction increases enough you get premium services (discounted repairs and clones anyone?) and can buy special equipment while you stay enrolled as a fighter for your faction. The transition between FW on -> off should take a considerable amount of time and should bring about a penalty when you turn it off - no constant switching when you feel like it. You either commit or you don't. Opportunists can go die :P Obviously you shouldn't be able to join a faction when they hate you at all.
Amarr Mineral Index
|
Tharrn
Amarr
Epitoth Fleetyards
Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 16:48:00 -
[135] - Quote
I also wondered how to include industrial players or players not interested in combat-PvP:
Add low-sec border zones between all Empires. There shouldn't be high-sec routes between the different Empires at all. As the Navy presence would be less strong in low-sec this would probably also be where most factional warfare would take place. An additional bonus would be that we could get rid of Jita that way :P Regional markets ftw!
Now add some special low-slot modules that can only be mounted on industrial ships and are used to carry certain goods needed by the factions ('High security arms cache' etc). If a ship has these fitted it cannot be transported in a jump-capable ship anymore (no cheating! :P). Each faction makes certain tradegoods (and only one faction makes each) like 'trigger units' or 'high-tech warheads'. Each faction needs all of them to make the special equipment players with high faction standing can buy... you see a pattern emerge? These goods are delivered to certain Navy Factory Stations and only after a certain amount of the special tradegoods is delivered some of the factional goodies become available (depending on what combinations of these goods is available to the factory). The PvP players would thus have a healthy interest to ensure a constant flow of these goods, which all have to go through low-sec somehow...
Too much coding required I guess :P
Amarr Mineral Index
|
Sir Hades
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 16:50:00 -
[136] - Quote
For any of this to work, faction warfare needs to be in both hi sec and low sec.
-Points
Progress of the faction war should be measured in a system of points. For each enemy asset destroyed, your faction shall receive a set amount of points.
-Planets
Right now, planets serve little purpose. Faction warfare should give the planets a role. There should be several structures and ships in orbit around the planets. These structures are one of the ways to gain points. Once a structure is destroyed, it is gone forever.
- Convoys: These are the same convoys that we see in space now. They go from the supply depots to the stations. Easily ganked by a gang of frigates. Worth a few points. Do respawn.
- Supply depots: These store goods of some sort before they are shipped to the stations. They can be destroyed by a roving gang of frigates. Worth several points. Many of these around a planet.
- Space elevator: This allows the transfer of goods between the surface of the planet and space. Can be destroyed by a gang of cruisers. Worth a fair amount of points. Several of these around a planet.
- Planet command center: This structure houses the command staff that oversees the transfer of goods between surface and supply depots and between the supply depots and stations. Requires a gang of battleships to destroy. Worth a lot of points. Only one per planet.
- System command center: This structure oversees the supply lines of the entire system. Requires battleships and support craft to take down. Worth tons of points. Only one per system. Usually the target of large missions.
-Ships
Protecting the planet structures will be a mix of sentry guns, navy NPCs, and players. The relation between a systemFs security status and mix of ships is related. As the security status goes up, there are more and larger NPC ships with battleships guarding in 1.0 systems. As the security status lowers, there are less and smaller NPC ships and the reliance will fall on players. Player ships also give points. The size of the ship and the amount of points are related.
|
Sir Hades
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 16:50:00 -
[137] - Quote
-Missions
Faction stations will all have a faction warfare agent. Each agent is the same. There will also be a faction chat channel that is only used to relay orders to the fighters of the faction. It can not be closed and no one can talk in it.
There are two main types of missions.
Small missions are free from and player driven. The agent tells you to destroy assets in a particular constellation. This is a wide area of space to hit so that blobbing is not an option. The enemy faction does not know that the mission in under way. It is up to the players to organize a defense. Each mission lasts a week. Assets destroyed in a mission get double the points. However, it is not always the best idea to only attack the target area. It is a good idea to attack other areas to keep the enemy split up and to gain more points.
Large missions are scripted and offer less player flexibility. The head commander of the navy pops into the faction channel and tells that there is a very important mission coming up. The players go to an agent and get the details. The agent will tell the target system and at what time the NPC navy is coming in. Players have the choice of when to start their attack, but the navy will come in at the time listed. The mission will be given out the day before. Two hours before the mission is set to go off, the enemy faction commander will come into their chat channel and warn them of the incoming attack. The enemy commander will list them target system and time of the attack. Players must then scramble a defense force. The attacking force will attack until the target is destroyed, or until a set number of points in losses have occurred and the other to retreat is given. Large missions are only given out once a set number of points have been reached. Large missions also yield double points for destroyed assets. Large missions also yield LP for the navy to all players of that faction if successful.
Since large missions have a point requirement, it will inspire people to go out and destroy target in player lead operations, to do small missions, and to guard systems to prevent the enemy from gaining the ability to have larger missions.
There is a third type of missions, but it will not be as common as the other two. This is a border mission. It is given out at the beginning of the week and lasts a week. The commander of the navy will get into the channel and tell of a mission of the utmost importance. Players go to an agent and receive the target system and the orders to destroy all assets in the system. Once this has been completed, a navy freighter will warp into system with a support fleet and set up a system command center. The players have to defend the freighter and structure. If the players are successful, the system is now under the control of the attacking faction. If the players are not successful, then the defenders will still retain control of the system. Border missions only take place in the border zones of the empires and only after a very large amount of points have been gained.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 18:02:00 -
[138] - 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 -
[139] - 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.
|
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari
E X O D U S
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 19:06:00 -
[140] - Quote
I won't comment on FW as a whole yet, I think Ginger and GreyScale have given a lof of responses in this thread, I'll wait until they're dev-blogged.
World Shaping
Having systems' security status changing, depending on how hostile a system has been recently; would be quite good. Although 0.1-0.4 means little to most people, it would be an indicator of how much of a warzone a particular system is.
Combine this with more rats, reduced station services (still dockable, but the ravages of war affecting station services), and so on.
Make it stop!
Pilots should be able to switch sides, given enough time and mission grinding. Eve is an excellent game because you can go from +10 to -10 and back again; you can get a +7.5 standing to Caldari, then throw it all away and fly Gallente. Anything is possible, no doors should be closed.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
|
Grawshellar
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 19:50:00 -
[141] - Quote
Edited by: Grawshellar on 16/09/2007 19:53:31
Edited by: Grawshellar on 16/09/2007 19:52:22
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
On industrial FW: this is something we very much want, but the trick will be designing a system where it has an impact, but not an overwhelming one. Nobody wants to haul stuff all over lowsec and generate no discernible effect, but equally nobody wants to be hugely penalised because some other guy screwed up his hauling run or what have you. This will need thought and balance.
My apologies if I missed a similar suggestion.
How about allowing a certian base itemtype to be "sold" to the faction(at a reduced price/reward) to allow the purchase of the faction equivalent?
EXAMPLE
You can spend 100,000 "pvp points/whatever" to get the new coolest amarr factional pwnage Augoror. However the amarr empire doesn't have an endless supply of them, so its up to the players to donate a handy supply of Augorors, slaves, and datacores. They do get compensated for donating these items of course, but the supply of faction item is directly dependent on industrialist supporting the faction as well. If there are no industrialist donating items, there are no modules/ships to receive!
* I suggested datacorse, slaves, and ships to get researchers, mission runners, industrialist in on the action. But it could easily be anything.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge
Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 20:21:00 -
[142] - Quote
Edited by: Ellaine TashMurkon on 16/09/2007 20:21:44
I thought it would be nice to have FW rewards working differently, depending on race. Currently, agent missions use exact same mechanics in all factions, like if all factions had same social organization. Changing that for FW would make people feel their factions more, see that they are built on different fundamental values.
Caldari
Precision;
You are rewarded for executing all tactical objectives in encounter.
Efficiency;
You are rewarded for destroying enemies per ISK damage.
Teamwork;
Whole team in encounter gets same share of rewards for the whole action.
Perfectionism;
Failure is punished more then with other races.
Gallente
Individualism;
Every pilot in a team gets his own rewards for his own deeds, kills, objectives.
Adaptation;
You are more rewarded for secondary objectives appearing during encounter.
Deadliness;
You are rewarded for (pvp) damage done.
Freedom;
Punishment in whatever points for failure and loss is lesser then with other races, however any faction reimbusement and support is also smaller.
Tolerance;
Other races and people with low standings can be accepted and advance easier ten with oter races.
Minmatar
Bravery;
You are rewarded enemy numbers and ship sized if they have advantage (even if You loose miserably)
Brutality;
You are rewarded for pvp final blows.
Brotherhood;
You are punished for team mate ship loses (but not your own).
Amarr
Superiority
You are not rewarded for killing enemies. They are inferior, weak creatures, we expected them to die anyway, no?
Faith
You are rewarded for declaring to join encounters without knowing exact location, objectives, whatever
Pride
You are rewarded for staying on battlefield, even if you loose, even if you die. You are punished for fleeing, no matter the odds.
Corruption
FW NPCs ask You for private favors time to time. They are not connected with team objectives, and are given individually. They may even be against team objectives and are designed to be troublesome. Like "One of our (NPC) ships in convoy holds some frentix. I want it. Let those minmatars accidentialy destroy or kill it yourself so no one sees and bring me the drug". Or "minmatar (NPC) pilot Your team is about to eliminate, just so happens to be my favorite personal slave who fled. Since its my slave, I want to punish her personaly. Bring her to me even if this means failing a secondary objective". For those personal favors, important NPCs can give very very high individual rewards.
Bureaucracy
After every FW encounter someone in team has to do a small, stupid courier mission with reports :)
|
Ralitge boyter
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 21:19:00 -
[143] - Quote
Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 16/09/2007 21:22:22
First of all as stated before: Ranks are cool, so please put them in.
Doing ranks will mean that you will more likely be able to switch sides. Doing so as an general will be more valuable for the enemy then when you are low ranking cannon fodder. On top of that doing so will mean that your former master hates you even more then your new friends did before. And that your new friends like you though they will not make you a general right from the start they will put you back a few ranks so you can prove your self. This makes for a simple mechanic and for a deminishing return when switching sides a lot.
Then when it comes to the docking rights, of course the stations should be sorted out so we do not have caldari stations in Galente space, or Minmatar in Ammar space. Maybe the war can make it imposible for the current owners to sustain their supply lines and thus they might redraw from the station, after which it can be taken over by the oposing faction. This can be done in the game by making new stations using the same graphics but new names, so all that needs to be done is change the graphic id of the station (it will be a bit harder in real eve, but far easier then the docking rights story most likely)
As for the danger in the other systems, I think that people that rise beond a cerrtain rank in one army sould of course be mistrusted by their enemy, and the raising of prices with the eventual disabeling of services should certainly be done for the enemy controled parts of space. But only at a certain rank.
The initial focus of factional warfare should be more on the industrial side of things the supply of material of ships, guns and so on as is normal with a war the build up of arms.
Then when the supply has been established the killers can start moving in more and more, taking out the supply lines, these will then become more protected making for better fights and bigger ships to be used. But as losses rise the demand for supplies becomes bigger and so on.
The faction wingman sounds like fun but also risky, as this might mean that PvP is only posible if you have trained your wingman control (or what ever the skill name might be) to level 5. As when you encounter an opponent with say 5 extra ships on him or a group of opponents with 25 extra ships the DPS from the extra ships is so huge that you do not stand a chance to eve scratch your opponent.
Quite posibly based on rank a type of mission can be chosen and based on that a number of wingman will be assigned, this wil then also mean that you will encounter an roughly equaly skilled opponent making for more intresting fights.
I can not imagine a general even wanting to wake up for a mision in which his sole task is the elimination of a soldier protecting a shipment of furtilizer.
A LP store integration sounds like a good idea but I do think there should be one more variable introduced, and that is rank. As you go up in rank you will get more lucerative deals and maybe even some unique items that you cannot get without that rank (or higher) This will not only lead to a reason to stick with a faction but also this will give current mission runners more of an incentive to move to the PvP type factional warfare asignments.
All in all it needs to be fun, the changing of security status might be good in the future but for now I think the initial set of things needs to be delivered as this has been talked about for years now but so far we still have to see the first Minmatar security gun shoot an Ammar ship just because it was trying to pass.
-------------------------------------------
Should you disagree with me, well I guess that is because I disagree with you. If you have a problem with that please feel free not to tell me. |
Elipsis
Gallente
The Mission Guys
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 21:24:00 -
[144] - Quote
To me the most important thing is that our actions actually shape what happens in the game world in a real and tangible way.
I'd like to see the focus be border systems. Maybe some sovereignty changes hands in a few systems based on which faction is best represented, maybe some of those Amarr stations in Minmatar space get taken over by the Minmatar. The map should be reshaped following these battles. Borders should be changed and objectives can then be analyzed and evaluated for the next leg of the war. This would give a wonderful strong feeling that our actions in game truly were changing the game world.
-...
CEO and Founder of the Mission Guys |
Boma Airaken
The Divine Comedy
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 21:46:00 -
[145] - Quote
Originally by: The Cosmopolite
The approach in the blog looks good so far as it goes. I also agree with much that Nuyan said but with one caveat on the issue of docking.
Before getting to that, I'd like to emphasise that I believe factional warfare should not require allegiance to be declared for anyone. Of course, it should be an option for those who want to do it. However, those who want to fight against a faction without declaring for another faction should have that option. Yes, of course, I would say that given my loyalties but I doubt we'd be the only people wanting that option, particularly if initially it only starts with the big four core empires.
On the controversial subject of docking rights. I'm not surprised this has reared its head but I'm not going to outright oppose it.
What I would say is that if it happens without a quid pro quo then it will be a huge turn off for people and could potentially marginalise factional warfare. The quid pro quo cannot simply be that one's enemies are similarly denied access in your home region. If you don't care about any home region that is no kind of quid pro quo. Again, we won't be the only people who will wish to practise asymmetric warfare and docking restrictions will be a penalty with no plus side for people like us.
My view is that if you want to make it difficult to impossible for an enemy of a faction to operate in a faction's region in one way then you have to offer them ways to operate that are in keeping with their standings to that faction. In other words, if you want to restrict them from doing certain things in the territory of an enemy faction then make it possible for them to do things that loyalists of that faction cannot do.
Restrict their ability to use a market in an empire? Then give them a black market. A real functioning black market which loyalists cannot access.
Restrict their ability to dock in law-abiding stations in an empire? Then give them access to criminal and rebel stations in that empire. Restrict access to loyalists in some manner. Use deadspace and/or have stations shift but alway locatable by those friendly to them.
Just two ideas and by no means perfect or doable on the timescales envisioned. But simply restricting people without in some other way enabling them will not make factional warfare fun for that many people.
Maybe those people who want to have docking rights restricted also want a decent quid pro quo for that in gameplay terms. Really, any kind of restriction has to be balanced by some kind of countering ability.
Cosmo
This is good stuff. PLEASE take it into consideration CCP.
|
Schani Kratnorr
Magnificent Beavers
Exquisite Malevolence
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 22:13:00 -
[146] - Quote
I first read the blog, hoping for a timeline, but NOOOOO. Instead I get some utter dribble about stuff...
With regards to feedback from the players, I suggest you do a forum search and gather the thousands of threads already made on the subject. Some of them might contain what you're looking for... Asking us again is wastefull and borders on simple stalling tactics.
If you're not gonna deliver, just say so. Don't waste any more of our time building up hype.
(this post was made while PO'd due to your billing system not working... WHAT my RL ISK not good enoughu for you?)
*trods off to take his spot in the two-week long petition que*
 |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 22:50:00 -
[147] - Quote
Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 16/09/2007 22:51:35
First off, I'm glad the ball is rolling. This is something I've been looking forward to since I started. :)
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
On changing technical fundamentals: we don't want to use a lot of programmer time changing fundamental systems to achieve relatively small effects. Bear in mind that a lot of stuff works on assumptions made half a decade ago. Destroying stations or having them switch owners on a regular basis, for example, is something we want to avoid if possible, as it would likely soak up a lot of programming time we could use for other things.
I have a somewhat fleshed out framework of a FW system I've been mulling over for a long time. But there's a "technical fundamental" issue that, if not easily solvable, takes away much of the appeal of it away for me...and probably any FW system, really:
- Is it feasible to have another level or two of "blinky" to differentiate faction foes from other valid aggression targets, and faction allies from everybody else?
It's quite an important feature to have, in my opinion, even if my particular ideas aren't so good otherwise. With such a capability, FW can be extremely freeform...like an additional, optional layer of gameplay on top of EVE as it stands now. Without it, it seems to me that it's going to have to be much more tightly structured, and thus less interesting to me anyway.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Erim Solfara
Amarr
House of Solfara
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 23:05:00 -
[148] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Tharrn
Edited by: Tharrn on 14/09/2007 16:18:37
If it is a technical problem to completely deny docking - what about docking fees that get increasingly horrendous the lower the standing?
Edit: P.S. I wouldn't mind blowing up Freedom Extension Stations in the Empire if Concord and the Empire turned a blind eye :P
It's less a technical issue and more a gameplay/design one - what do we do about Amarr stations in Minmatar lowsec space, for example? Do we let Amarr FW players dock there? Do we stop Minmatar FW players docking there? What about the ones in hisec? What about Caldari stations in Minmatar space - do we let Amarr FW players dock there? And so on and so forth... It's something we're still considering including, but it's still not clear whether or not we can come up with a consistent, coherent way of restricting docking rights.
What about it stays as any player with a positive standing to the corp that owns the station can dock, but if a station is in the wrong sovereignty, then players can attack the station, perhaps with navy support, and, once destroyed, a new station of the correct faction would slowly be built.
The details of overcoming the station would have to be worked out, and how much support would be available, but I think it'd be nice to see stations being conquered and/or destroyed, even if it'd take a very long time and alot of commitment.
A new tool in the fight for balance? |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 23:22:00 -
[149] - Quote
from the other thread...
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
There's been a lot of discussion on this, and the exact point you bring up has been repeated multiple times Smile The basic problem of blobbing is a difficult one to approach - but we're looking at ways of countering it by setting the system up so that, past a certain point, "more firepower =/= completing the objective faster". If your 20-man blob takes as long to do something as a five-man raiding gang, blobbing stops being quite so profitable - you'd work faster splitting up, and if you insist on blobbing, your enemy can complete objectives three times faster than you using the same resources.
Stop thinking about objectives. Do not add anything to the game. Just integrate the thigns that are already in the game into factional warfare.
If i was a mission runner, i would want mission running to tie into factional warfare. If i was a miner, i would want mining to tie into factional warfare. If i was a ratter, i would want ratting to tie into factional warfare. If i was a pirate, i would want pirating to tie into factional warfare.
Simply give out LP rewards for these actions in each system. Sum the LP generated in each system and then give the system to the power with the total LP generated in that area over an arbitrary period of time. Add in some non-cosmetic changes to the system, like the type of rats that spawn in different areas[and make low-sec rats bigger in general], turn off opposing-factions mission agents, turn off opposing factions NPC buy or sell orders etc.
So, lets run this out pretty simply without going into specifics.
1. Ratting opposing NPCS gives LP
2. Running friendly missions gives LP.
3. Running friendly missions in enemy space gives more LP[I.E. mission accepted on a border region, moving into hostile space for the mission objective]
4. Put open contracts based on faction affiliation for ores, ships, etc. Make the completion of these give loyalty points. Put a cap on purchases each day
5. Put up open contracts based on faction affiliation to give out ores, ships, etc. Make the completion of these cost loyalty points. Put a cap on sales each day
6. Reduce loyalty points on any hostile action taken against a friendly faction
Now mining has an effect. It can be sold to the faction and increases their hold on an area.
Mission running has the same effect.
Now pirates have reason to go after miners and mission runners over what they normally do. It generates LP for them and stops LP from the other side.
Now anti-pirates have a reason to defend miners and mission runners.
Traders can move items to the front for LP.
Producers can produce items for the war for LP.
Fighters can buy faction ships, ammo, and equipment for LP[P.S. moar faction ships are always apreciated]
It doesnt change the basic dynamics of the game it just integrates it into factional wafare, gives them additional incentives to take the actions in low-sec, and close to areas where hostile forces are likly to be located.
|
GoGo Yubari
PAK
|
Posted - 2007.09.17 01:41:00 -
[150] - Quote
Just a few thoughts:
Systems that actually change hands!!
Reward bringing down enemy allied ships with loyalty points, not straight isk. It's not a bounty, it's recognition.
Though it is proposed as a sandbox, it would be interesting to see some kind of high level strategic coordination by the factions. Ie. "take Old Man Star"-tyle objectives, perhaps with higher loyalty point rewards for actions in line with the strategy, while still leaving the tactical decisions on how to accomplish that entirely in the players hands. This would bring in people roughly to the same hot zones to fight - hence, easy to get a fight.
While roaming and general warfare akin to current corp wars is okay to some extent, faction warfare needs to be distinct. Thus, and also still in the interests of bringing people to the same locales for the fights, make fights centered around certain areas and objectives (such as structures to be destroyed, raided or defended).
Denying docking rights flat-out, while interesting, is a huge change. However, this could easily be implemented for low-sec only! So, in low-sec/null-sec you would not be able to hide in stations belonging to opposing factions. This would really drive home the point of the harsh realities of the warzone, and the outposts as sort of besieged, paranoid and wary bastions of empire influence. Likewise, pirate stations should not welcome players not aligned to them - 0.0 does not need such safe havens which come at no cost.
You are saying that only the four empires will be at start. I hope to see the smaller empire (Khanid, Ammatar, Syndicate, etc) and of course the pirate entities included! The pirate missions should be centered around raiding/pillaging operations, rather than control of territory. Eve is not just about the 4 empires, there is so much flavor in the groups around them that it would be a travesty to ignore them.
I understand that is a possible plan in some later stages, but allowing players to take empire territory - if only in low-sec/null-sec - is a delicious prospect. Likewise, in contrast to this, allow players to conquer null-sec for their empires.
Love by nature. Live by luck. Kill by profession. |
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |