| 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) |
Azellin
    |
Posted - 2007.09.19 16:05:00 -
[211] - Quote
How will you prevent team killing? I mean there will always be those bottomfeaders that want nothing better than to get in a faction group and then attack the other members.
What about spies? There are bound to be spy alts getting into FW channels to alert their buddies where they opposing force is. What mechanism is going to Prevent this. Maybe I don't want to know so people can't plan to far ahead to get around the system. But I do want to know that you have thought this out well.
Escort missions! Get some FW 'missions' in there to protect those convoys. Have them jump between systems and have the opposing force get a mission to find and pew pew it. When you are escorting the convy would broadcast what it is doing so you could follow along. Like in chat it pops up "Convoy 239-Apha aligning to XYZ gate. Standby to warp." Etc.
FW gate camps. Are we going to see camps that are faction specific? I mean can a bunch of FWers set up a camp to keep out the oposing faction? Can we get faction specific interdiction spheres for use in low sec? please please please
I like the hidden faction base idea someone posted. Special places only your side can visit. Making them capturable or at least DISABLable, would rule.
SOS transponder. Some kind of 'come help me!' That brodcasts to all friendly faction folks with a jump or two that lets them know there is some faction stuff going down and they should come running. In combat it is hard to spam local for help and if something big is going down it would be sweet to know even from a jump or two away.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.19 22:24:00 -
[212] - Quote
 Originally by: Azellin
How will you prevent team killing? I mean there will always be those bottomfeaders that want nothing better than to get in a faction group and then attack the other members.
Obvious answer would be to give a massive standings hit for team killing, so you can only do it a handful of times before your standings are low enough for the faction to boot you out of their FW force. Won't stop people doing it, but will stop them doing it too many times...
------
Originally by: CCP Prism X
There's no such thing as playing too much EvE!
You all obviously need more accounts! |
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge
Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 05:16:00 -
[213] - Quote
Punish for getting help? WTF?
-Lord Admiral, having noticed that our enemies are Ursha Khan veterans with much greater war experience then us, we asked some of our friends to aid us in battle. They risked their private ships and we covered the expenses from our own wallets, for the empire. Thanks to this sacrifice, we have won!
-Thats team killing, you're degraded to privates!
????
Should be;
-Lord Admiral (...)
-Impressive, most impressive. Deep in our hearts they have my gratitude. However, you do realise that the Empire can only give any rewards and reimbuse any looses only for the designeated team?
 |
HexterBexter
Gallente
The Older Gamers
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 10:23:00 -
[214] - Quote
Personally I would like to see areas akin to the battlegrounds in (dare I say it..) WoW. Contested areas (probably easiest to make them deadspace areas) that need to be held by small groups (say up to 10 ships) for period of time.
For instance you and 9 other players need to keep a battlestation from being destroyed for a period of 30 minutes. This would require all sorts of ships and strategies. Winners could gain factional standings and the losers of course lose standings.
Having players able to warp in and out at lower levels of difficulty but only warp in with higher levels  as attrition takes its dastardly toll.
Also I would like to see a leaderboard where you can see how you rank. Either that or get a factional rank (private, general etc) so people can see how loyal you are. You could have it showing in your bio.
Finally, instead of getting rewards in a LP store fashion why not be given coordinates to a place they could find a reward. Make the player work for the reward. i.e
"I heard of a location for a stash the Gallente Navy were saving in case of war. Unfortunately it got overrun by ...blah blah... It was in the XXX system somewhere"
Sort of like the notes that drop occasionally. This would require probing to find, hacking / archeology to get and probably big haulers to remove the goods. Having the opposite faction getting the same location would make things interesting too... Make them hard with decent rewards
/my 2 cents - flame away :-)
|
Night Tripper
Es and Whizz
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 13:36:00 -
[215] - Quote
Originally by: HexterBexter
Personally I would like to see areas akin to the battlegrounds in (dare I say it..) WoW. Contested areas (probably easiest to make them deadspace areas) that need to be held by small groups (say up to 10 ships) for period of time.
For instance you and 9 other players need to keep a battlestation from being destroyed for a period of 30 minutes. This would require all sorts of ships and strategies. Winners could gain factional standings and the losers of course lose standings.
Having players able to warp in and out at lower levels of difficulty but only warp in with higher levels as attrition takes its dastardly toll.
Also I would like to see a leaderboard where you can see how you rank. Either that or get a factional rank (private, general etc) so people can see how loyal you are. You could have it showing in your bio.
Finally, instead of getting rewards in a LP store fashion why not be given coordinates to a place they could find a reward. Make the player work for the reward. i.e
"I heard of a location for a stash the Gallente Navy were saving in case of war. Unfortunately it got overrun by ...blah blah... It was in the XXX system somewhere"
Sort of like the notes that drop occasionally. This would require probing to find, hacking / archeology to get and probably big haulers to remove the goods. Having the opposite faction getting the same location would make things interesting too... Make them hard with decent rewards
/my 2 cents - flame away :-)
i don't know if they make flame suites strong enough for that one 
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 13:49:00 -
[216] - 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 -
[217] - 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?
|
|
Dr Cedric
Caldari
The Nietzian Way
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 19:22:00 -
[218] - Quote
Im having a hard time figuring out how to separate the "mission grind" and zero zero alliance fighting from FW. How are 'missions' going to be created in a way that both sides have the opportunity to meet each other so the face shooting can ensue?
It seems like if you sign up for X faction to bust up Y faction, (at least this is how I've interpreted this) that you'll have to wait, or ask for some 'mission' to go and bust up the bad guys. On the other hand, it also seems like you'll just grab the 4-5 Faction X-ers in system with you, go out to whatever system and 'gank' some Faction Y-ers. Both of these are already in place (missions and Alliance wars [read NBSI]). So how will this be different. I'd really like to hear how the devs are going to push FW to be PvP for a reason, because right now I can't figure it out myself.
On a different note, some more ideas.
Rankings listed in Bio is a great idea. A bit of importance attached to your character is good. Also corpses were mentioned. Let say you go and shoot General Gallente in the face, bust his pod and scoop his corpse. Can we bring said corpse into our home station and get a "Faction Navy Uber Mod of total destruction" or something along those lines. It would be intersting to see high ranking faction fighters having to watch their backs as they ascended the command ladder because of increasingly lucrative rewards for the otherside to face-blasterize them!
Another thing...I don't know if this is on track at all or not, but how about 'set bonuses'? Lets say you get a full Gal Navy setup, Mag stabs, blasters, ammo, reppers...the whole lot, AND you put it on a Federation Mega. Is there a mechanic to put a bonus on a mod or set of mods when they are active on the same ship? Say a full rack of this or that will give a 2-5% bonus for something. That would really encourage ppl to get into this FW thing, and to go all out to get that edge on the opposition.
One more idea:
I mentioned in an earlier post about industry and FW. Having a Faction market to sell faction goods to fellow faction fighters, and only being able to find faction bpc's in said market. It seems that this secondary market is the best way (i can think of anyway) to get industry really involved in this FW idea. You have to be aligned to the faction to get the bp, you have to use the faction facility to produce it, and you have to sell it from the faction station, since you can only purchase it from a faction station.
I'm liking this idea more and more. I hope things get smoothed out and we have a fully functioning system, ready to go straight out of the box when Rev. 3 comes out.
Keep up the good work
Dr Cedric
Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way
-My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance- |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.20 21:07:00 -
[219] - Quote
Edited by: Goumindong on 20/09/2007 21:09:40
Originally by: CCP Ginger
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?
Basically i envisioned using NPCs as variable goals.
Lets say that Amarr holds low-sec domain. Well, low-sec domain is going to be a target for the Minmitar. So the Minmitar would send its forces to the area to cause disruptions etc. This would be represented as belt rats. The belt rats are hostile to all non-minmitar alligned players in the area. This may or may not mean that the normal pirate rats dont spawn, only that the minmitar rats spawn. This gives Amarran players an incentive to be in the belts killing rats. Because it nets them LP[or some other mechanic] which helps "the cause".
But you cant just expect Amarr to sit there and take it, they are going to attempt to control their systems. So they post guards at the gates. I.E. Gate Rats. The gate rats are hostile to any player alligned against Amarr[rather than non-amarr alligned]. Now this gives minmitar players reason to wander through Amarr space killing the gate rats and hey, as an added benefit they can jump into the belts and hopefully find some folks ratting Minmitar rats.
If the Minmitar generated enough LP in the area[or whatever mechanic you are using] to take the system then Amarr would start sending belt rats to the area and minmitar would post gate rats.
This way we give objectives to each side that push themselves towards one another. Considerations such as the quality of the rat[0.0 quality rats please], and the frequency with which they spawn compared to pirate rats, and the frequency with which they scramble are secondary to the idea of having dynamic objectives that consistantly push players togother.
Other things you can do is have gate rats be stronger the farther into territory you go[this is very difficult though because of jump algorythms] and the belt rats be weaker, but again, secondary to the dynamic objecties themselves.
Specificially how it is implemented, whether its faction alligned sentries or friendly patrols in belts or whatnot, isnt so important so long as the objectives are dynamic. You could give reasons for hostile forces to be in the area ratting instead of friendly forces for instance.
So feel free to expand upon the idea with partols and sentries.
As an aside: I dont think NPC wingman will be all that great. In the roleplay manner, to me, pod pilots seem like mercenaries and not like regulars, which means they likly wont have the ability to order NPCs around. That isnt to say that NPCs that are friendly with them shouldnt attack targets that are mutually hostile, it just means that the NPCs ought to be doing their own thing.
|
Kira Felicitas
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 10:51:00 -
[220] - Quote
Regarding the npc ships I would have a small wish: don't let them all fly around in faction ships but also in common ships that also players can fly. It makes the whole thing more authentic I think. It's always a very boring thing to kill the same rats over and over again - and so it would be with those faction npc's. I would also appreciate if you made those factio npc's (or even the current npc's) a little harder: just smaller numbers of npc's but then with better fittings and maybe a greater variety in their fittings - and perhaps some useful loot ;)
|
|
Fergus Runkle
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 13:58:00 -
[221] - Quote
Originally by: CCP Ginger
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.
To be honest I cannot understand why this is even up for discussion. Eve is a harsh place, nowhere is safe. We have suiciders in high sec, scammers on contracts, corps that random war dec and choke points into 0.0.
All those things people consent to be part of one way or another (yes running your expensive stuff around in an indy in high sec is consenting to have it blown up). If people have bad standings to one faction then they must have done something to get those standings, therefore they must accept the consequences.
Negative standings simply has to have meaningful consequences, refused docking is in my opinion the least of things that I would do to someone I see as my enemy.
|
Macmuelli
Gallente
Gallente Mercantile Exchange
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 14:11:00 -
[222] - Quote
U should add the possibilty to let players help the faction then , building this npc s drones.
Which means if the wanna have strong npcs drones which patroulling / scouting the systems/ belts /sstations etc... , the player had to bring tech II ship comps + minerals perhaps tech I ships as Basic`s.
This woud also add a pvp situation to the factional warfare if "the other faction side" try to break such a deliverys.
So u need to protect this transports as a faction warfare player then.
Also there should be Missions which needs Freighters to transport stuff via secured " faction" cans( there is stuff for npc faction ships then inside). That the player had the chance to increase the npc faction ships, without donating it from market or producing.
A smal chance for tech II salvage on this npc faction ship wrecks sshoud be added.
About faction ships and patroulling and scouting.
They shoud temporary visit all belts / stations / gates.
if a player ( pa example) mining in a belt and the shown up , the npcs faction drones will take money from them, and he have the chance to accept it and can mining again. Or he didnt pay and have the chance to warp out ... for a spare time... or getting killed.
this woud add the situation that ppls in good quality system/ belts or publich belts will be do something against them.
A chance for t II salavage on tech II npc faction ships, will make it worth killing them too.
As a factional warfare player u shoud have the chance joing such a npc gang.
Upon your rank u coud take a position inside this gang.
Means if u rank is higher then the npcs faction gang u can give them bonus, which makes them stronger.
Upon your rank u shoud have step by step bigger gangs include better qualtiy npcs " wingmens".
U shoud have the chance to equip your wings with guns/ plates/ ammu/ repairer for the beginning.
The members of npcs" wingmens" shud be also combine with leadership skills.
pa example :
leadership skill
(extrabonus to the actualy skill)
lev 1 = 1 wingmen
lev 2 = 2 wingmens
lev 3 = 3 wingemns
lev 4 = 4 wingmens
lev 5 = 5 wingemns
wingcommand skill shoud take effect to wingmens quality like adding tech II ships to wingmen.
Fleetcomannd skill should add the possibilty for the player creating npc scouting gangs ( equiped by the player), which doing patrouls around the system.
This could be also scouting/ patroulling gangs which operate if the player isnt online.
This option should be only avaiable for realy high ranking factional warfare players.
some ideas.
breg mac
"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "
|
LovelyRita Metermaid
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 15:53:00 -
[223] - Quote
One thing I think would be very cool is if when the factions go to war suddenly there are no high-sec border systems anymore. In other words, you have to travel through at least one system of low sec space to go from Gallente sectors to Caldari, for example. After all, should Jita be filled with Gallente pilots when the factions are at war?
Rita
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:07:00 -
[224] - Quote
IdeaFs on FW / NPC Sovereignty and PvP Missions
Premises: The current system of static faction empires shall remain, while there shall be an dynamic impact caused by the players participating in the factional warfare. Therefore, systems will not completely change faction alignment, but a dynamic influence factor affects the behaviour of towards faction aligned player, providing a macroscopic reason to take part in the FW. The players shall be the driving forces of these dynamics. Therefore, a system should relax into its initial state, which shall be represented the current situation without FW, if player do not performs FW activities in the system.
The aim of PVP missions is synchronize balanced forces of opposing factions and get them into a defined scenario with minimal interferences of third parties. As a given premise a corporation needs to get a suitable faction standing to enrol for participation in FW. Its members then can decide how much they personally want to take part in the FW.
Sovereignty Level (SL) : While it was recently introduced as a new parameter stirring PvP POS warefare in player alliance driven 0.0, the concept shall be extended to NPC controlled low-sec space determining the degree of domination of this faction the particular system. Since a high domination gives certain benefits to the corporations aligned with the faction, this system provides a top level reasoning to take part in factional warfare while the individual player also gets direct benefits from taking part in the FW mission system. The SL system is only applicable to low-sec systems since CONCORD enforces an unbiased treatment of all factions in high-sec systems.
Faction Warfare Missions based on Faction Warfare Installations
First, the player decides whether to take part in sovereignty enforcement of a specific system or to take part in the campaign of the counter-faction in order to weaken the domination of the opposing faction. Enforcing missions are available only for the system you are in, sovereignty bating missions are regionally listed and system unspecific prior selection. The system name becomes only disclosed once the mission has been selected, thus avoiding possible exploits.
While enforcing missions comprise a PvE, a PvP and a reward phase, the bating missions are PvP only. The concept of PvP force syncronization is similar to POS warfare using reinforcement mode as a tool, but without the current flaws of fleet combat, without the possibility to blobb and outnumber the enemy.
The general idea is to create PvP scenarios, where only the FW PvPers are able to take part in while other low sec activities are unchanged or only slightly influenced by the macroscopic effect of FW, i.e. the Sovereignty Level.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:08:00 -
[225] - Quote
PVE part of Enforcing Missions
The PVE part of this mission might comprise the conquering and reinforcement of a hostile installation from opposing NPCs (military plus minor logistics) or the building of a new military installation (major logistics mission) and follows the standard design of NPCs missions. The result in any of these scenarios is a dead space dedicated to the FW PvP players only. The dead space is 2-staged secured by an acceleration gate allowing access to the main area only to correctly aligned FW players, only in a defined number and with defined ships. Certain missions require small fleets, some allow larger fleets, some missions require specific ship types or disallow certain ship types. To make the use of these dead spaces as flexible as possible the mission owner can, configure the installation to some extent. Strontium shall serve the very same purpose as in POS warfare, while other fuels shall govern the reward period, where the successful PvP defense is rewarded with a score contribution towards the Sovereignty Level of the system and personal bonuses towards the defending players. With the successful conquer or erecting of an installation the Mission Owner gets a copyable and tradable Badge serving as bookmark, access key and providing the scenario information on the PvP part. With the use of this Badge, he can either organize the PvP defence phase privately by sharing the Badge with his friends or in public by using contracts or other means.
PVP part of Enforcing Missions
Similar to the use of Strontium in POS warfare the installation is secured by a player chosen grace period giving the player the chance to organize the defence the installation in a PvP situation, then followed by the period of active defence and closed by a reward period. As mentioned above, the installation is configured in the PvE part by the Mission Owner but every correctly aligned FW player can take part in the defence of the installation by acquiring the Badge from the Mission Owner.
As said above Badge provides a bookmark to the entry gate of the dead space and gives information on the specifics of the scenario ( i.e. when the Installation gets out RF Mode, how important the Mission is { i.e. how important the installation is and long the reward phase will take { and what the pilot number and ship type restriction of this scenario are. Everybody else, who tries to jump to the bookmark location without having the Badge and being part of the correct faction will be dragged to a blank space within the dead space pocket, where the only option is to warp out again, thus no third party can interfere. The acceleration gate to main stage is the scenario filter allowing only specific ship types and only the specified number of pilots to get access prior to the end of the RF mode. Once the installation gets out of RF mode, there is a 30 min defence period, where both sides can fight over there installation and 10 minute period, in which one FW fleet can call for NPC reinforcement but only if no player from the opposing faction is the installation anymore (PODs are forced to warp out by low DPS DOT generated in the installation). When the NPC reinforcement fleet arrives at the installation it secures it for the reward period.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:09:00 -
[226] - Quote
The securing NPC fleet must be actively called by the deployment of an item tFaction Officerv which then transforms into an agent in space for interaction purposes, rewarding the winning pilots personally:
[*] If the defenders succeed, the installation contributes to the Sovereignty Level for the Reward Period and they get personal rewards from the Faction Officer in this dead space.
[*]If the defenders fail and opposing faction succeeds the installation dead space is flooded by a hostile NPC fleet which stays for the Reward Phase and provides a malus on the Sovereignty Level. The succeeding pilots get a reward from the Faction Officer they deployed in the installation.
[*]If nobody from neither faction deploys a Faction Officer, because nobody took part in the PVP Phase or all pilots thostingv Faction Officers in their ships (i.e. having the spawning item on board ) were downed, the installation just despawns without dishing out rewards or contributions to the Sovereignty Level, but wasting the resources used for building the installation and fuelling the reward period.
PVP part for Bating Missions of the counter-faction
The Bating Missions are pretty much the same in terms of the player gathering mechanisms, but with the difference, that they are regionally listed at Intelligences Agents located a region headquarter. The FW players get information about the the level of the mission, duration of the reward phase, the maximal fleet specifics (number and ships) and of course the date and timing of the end of the RF phase. In addition, they get information on how many Mission Badges have been issued for this mission giving a feeling how crowded a mission could be. In order to avoid exploits, there should be a fee or escrow for obtaining these Badges so you are highly encouraged to then pursue the mission, once chosen.
Once a pilot has selected a mission he gets the non-transferable Mission Badge, which discloses system, where he is supposed to head for this operation and all other mission specifics. In order to minimize chances for third party interactions the Badge does not lead directly to the system, where the installation is located, but to a non-scanable agent in space in one of the neighbour systems. This agent in space is heavily guarded by faction NPCs ensuring, that only players of the correct faction gather at the agent in space. Once the RF mode phase has ended, this agent in space can open a jump bridge for the specified number of pilots and ship types in to the dead space pocket, where a gate accelerates the aggressing fleet into the area of the installation itself. In other words many pilots can gather at the hidden agent in space, but when the installation becomes hot, only a defined fleet jumps over into the destination system and then decides, when to engage the defending fleet by using the dead space internal acceleration gate that leads to the installation.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:10:00 -
[227] - Quote
Reward Phase
Depending on the type of the installation and the amount of fuel (new types of tfuellantsv, such as maybe NPC soldiers, NPC officers, ships, modules, ammunition) all installations, that have gone through the PvP phase, enter the reward phase and contribute to the reward system, the macroscopic Sovereignty Level and an individual reward system. An installation, that was not successfully defended, rewards the successful aggressors directly after the PVP phase by dishing out rewards via the agent in space aka faction officer and then closes down. An successfully defended installation dead space becomes accessible through out the whole reward period for the Mission Owner and the Defenders via a non-transferable Badge, which servers as a gatekeeper, that activates the gate to the installation for a defined period. So if you have own the Badge, you can use it to warp and gate your friends to the installation. Depending on the installation the Badge Owners and their FW friends, can use the installation for retrieving rewards such as transformation of goods into faction rewards or access to rewarding PVE Missions etc.
Once the reward phase has ended, the installation get degraded by one Tier level (see below, a Tier I just despawns) and gets populated by the opposing faction, thus getting on the mission roaster for the PvE conquer mission part.
The macroscopic Sovereignty Level has influence to the behaviour of the station services and the hosted agents and the system security. With low SL the system behaves pretty much the sames as now with no bias towards anybody.
High SL provides certain quantitative advantages such as better refining, lower repairing costs, cheaper production, higher Mission rewards, while players of the opposing faction suffer from quantitative and qualitative disadvantages such as inaccessible services and/or higher costs and lower rewards. Non-participating players are only mildly quantitatively affected depending on their faction standing, they will have all services but the costs may be slightly influenced by their standing in high SL Systems.
In addition high SL provides security for the participating FW players in a way, that NPC faction fleets secure the gates and stations. Their number, strength and mode of action depends on the SL. For very high SL 4.0, the system behaves for correct aligned FW players like a high sec system, meaning they can run missions and mine in a system without the fear of getting attacked by anybody since NPC faction fleet behaves like CONCORD for them.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.09.21 21:11:00 -
[228] - Quote
Edited by: Tairon Usaro on 21/09/2007 21:13:20
Details on the installation categories
Each system has 10 tdead space slotsv for FW. There are four tier levels of installations, which can be constructed in PvE mission part. The availability is depending on the Sovereignty Level. At SL <1.0 only basic (Tier I) installations are available. At 1.0 { 1.99 Tier II installations are available in the PvE part and 2.0 { 3.0 Tier III installations are available. Tier IV is only possible in systems with SL > 3.0, if the majority of systems in a constellation is dominated with SL 1 (Tier II installations in system).
Tier I installation
Building costs: no burden for a small man group of average players ( 2 man hour work eqivivalent in minerals/trage goods)
Strontium bay: 1 - 36 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 1 { 3 days
Sovereignty value: 2 if successfully defended, -1 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: FW-PVE Mission agents
PVP-Scenario: 5 vs 5, maximal cruiser size, only T1
Tier II installation
Building costs: no burden for a average corp of average players ( 10 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 1 { 5 days
Sovereignty value: 3 if successfully defended, -2 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards
PVP-Scenario: 10 vs 10, maximal cruiser size, T2 ships allowed
Tier III installation
Building costs: quite a burden for a corp of average players ( 50 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.)
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 3 { 10 days
Sovereignty value: 6 if successfully defended, -6 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards, research slots for faction invention,
faction controlled jump bridges to other tier 3 installations usable also for capitals,
faction NPCs secure gates and stations, if SL is >3.0
PVP-Scenario: 15 vs 15, maximal battleship size, T2 ships allowed
Tier IV Installation
Building costs: large burden for the FW player community ( 500 Man hours work equivalent in minerals/trade goods etc.) only possible if the majority of systems in a constellation is dominated
Strontium bay: 6 - 48 hours
Fuelling for reward phase: 14 days
Sovereignty value: 10 if successfully defended, -20 if taken over by hostile faction
Reward services: PVE Mission agents, production slots for faction rewards, research slots for faction invention, mineral ore compressing refineries
faction controlled jump bridges to other tier 3 installations usable also for capitals,
Concord like interventions of the faction NPCs fleets patrolling the whole system, if SL = 4.0
PVP-Scenario: 30 vs 30, no ship type restrictions
The overall SL is the sum of the sovereignty values divided by 10. Negative values and >4.0 are capped into the range 0.0 to 4.0. In theory, a system could have a "true SL" of 10 or -20 but that would be shown as 4.0 and 0.0.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Dr Grot
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 07:14:00 -
[229] - Quote
I'm looking forward to FW as a new player. The RP and storyline missions are a bit weak atm. Some really great ideas floating about here
CCP,
I really really hope you won't tie skill points into faction warfare. Skill points and prerequisite skills should not enter the FW/RP side of the game at all in my opinion.
Every player should have equal access to FW, giving veterans a step up the FW ladder would be a very bad thing.
|
miss horizontal
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 07:16:00 -
[230] - Quote
My Idea is to actually get agentmissions out of the game and placem in this Factional Warfare Stuff.(yes u will keep LP and Standings)
So now we have 2 groups of "mission runners"
The ones who choose to go and do the "Storylines" [insert factional warfare "missions" here] and the ones who want to do their Own missions but can choose to help the faction they do "missions" for in main encounters when say headquarter of faction is attacked.
If they were doing courier missions before they can now go and haul stuff to the frontlines [insert new idea of courier missions here]
people who did combat type of missions can defend a system and kill a small raid of enemy faction.
And yes send those to lowsec too.. its a game at the end and people should travel and have an impression atleast of every part of it.If they really dont want to go to Lowsec and help with FW they can "Defend" the homesystems of the faction.
Playing together like this u can now have people working together to achieve a goal example pl A has mission to bring ammo to the frontlines and hes in gang with his buddies(or who want to do combat missions or in this case new Esscort mission(wich u wanted to bring in anyways), so this gang gets now order/mission: Fleet needs Ammo and the gang has to deliver they choose whos Hauler and they choose whos Escort they equip what ships they want but they have to buy/build ships and stuff they need ofc.
Basicly combine the existing with the new FW get rid of what u didnt like from beginning.
Can be Great Chance for CCP in fixing missions and have really an Situation where people have to work together to finish a "mission".
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 10:29:00 -
[231] - 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.
You are jocking or following the BOB idea of total control over EVE, I hope.
If your suggestion is intended as a serious one, you are asking for:
a) more toy and space for big alliance, this time in low sec instead of 0.0;
b) less space for small corporations;
c) less space for new players;
d) less space for half or more of the EVe population, the halt that alredy has accees to less than 1/4 of the systems.
For alle the above it is a very bad idea
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 11:10:00 -
[232] - Quote
Originally by: Malachon Draco
It would IMO be the death of factional warfare if you'd see a fleet of CVA squaring off against Ushra'Khan with a third of the CVA in Megathrons, 15% in Rokhs and 15% in Tempests, vs a UK fleet in 30% megathrons, 20% rokhs and 10% apocalypses. Make the choices tough, and make people stick to them.
I disagree with your idea that the combatants should stick to the racial ships.
Let's make some example related with WWII:
- a large percentage of the english armoured forces was composed by american tanks (grant, lee (a modified grant renamed by the english), stuart and sherman tank, M3 halftrack);
- Patton fielded a whole division of german tanks and used it in the '44/45 winter campaign;
- the URSS had a noticeable number of english and USA tanks (but used them in secondary roles as most of the T34 models where better) and a lot of USA halftrack and trucks, widely used;
- the germans used a lot of 76 mn guns captured from the russian, building with them tank hunters on french tank chassis, then used polish and checoslovak tanks, and modified them in hybrid forms;
- the english used captured italian tanks in the deser wars;
- the italians used French tanks in the defence of Sicily in '43;
and the list can go on for a lot of time.
So the use of enemy materials is common in war. It would be really interesting if one of the possible rewards for faction warfare was some hybrid ships created blending 2 enemy states tecnology, for example:
"Seizing the system Villore the Amarr Empire has captured a large number of partially build meghatron and converted them to the use of our glourious lasers.
So we are willing to give them to the ally of our empire."
So the Amarr faction will sell for LP and isk a limited set of Meghatron with the ship bonus changed in a laser damage/laser capacitor bonus for Amarr BS level, and a tracking bonus for Gallente BS level, without other change in armor/shield/hull and the minimum change possible in fitting.
The best thing would be if the number of those ships would be limited (even if large enough, at least some hundred if the number of players doing faction wars is high enough) and giving them out linked to partecipating in the faction wars in a specific timeframe (i.e. the first quarter 2008 campaign veterans are the only people allowed to buy the Amarr Blessed Meghatrons).
|
Mudkest
MetaForge
Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 11:32:00 -
[233] - Quote
not sure if this has been pointed here or not yet, have seen this mentioned in another post. but the "every race get same ship types" seems a bit silly to me.
anyway, factional warfare and new ships. For example, amar method of bringing big ships with shiney hulls and light shows, and minmatar's hit-and-run approach with fast agile ships. after the war started and minmatar lost ships to amar battleships, amar not being able to deal with the hit-and-run tactics all that well theye design new ships as a counter, only logical right?
so, minmatar might come up with a heavy stealthbomber, able to do some serious damage against battleships(t2 cruiser design with bonus to citadel torpedoes like stealth bombers have now or something). And to deal with those pesky fast frigates and cruisers the amar design a heavy destroyer(whole new t1 ship type).
but only make those new ship types for 1 or 2 races(there's no restriction in this game, so everyone will be able to fly the amar heavy destroyer if theye want too). maybe only at first and create one for every race later.
looks more fun in the "fi tion heavy" part to me, amar come up with counter, minmatar creater counter to that, caldari adapts it and then galante gets a new ship to counter the caldari/minmatar one and so on. Also looks more fun game-wise to me, as now we getting 20 new ships for example in next patch, 5 different typse. If not every race would be getting same ship type then there might have been 10 or even 15 nw ship typse with those 20 new ships.
suppose there might be balance issues, but the "every race should have one" is not really a balance issue imo, as everyone can fly any ship.
-----
GIEV custom ship paint jobs!
I want my hello-kitty-kessie! |
Dr Grot
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 12:17:00 -
[234] - Quote
I think this has been already stated in a dev response, from what I gather, players won't be restricted to only piloting the ships of the faction they're fighting for.
You could be a Caldari pilot, flying a Minmatar ship, fighting for Amarr empire in theory.
Any limit on ships race type would be just silly and quite frankly unworkable. You would be penalising those players who invested in training different race ships to take advantage of some of the better classes.
The only restriction might come from the LP store and which faction ships are for sale for each faction. Even so imo not a lot of people would be using their navy ships in pvp unless the prices came down as a result of the more LP players acquire.
|
Bagehi
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 18:52:00 -
[235] - Quote
I'm not sure if someone else has already pointed this out yet or not, but, I would think the autopilot system would need to be revamped. People would need to have the ability to tell the autopilot to stay away from certain constellations/regions, so you aren't left plotting your own course to get around (insert the faction that hates you) space.
|
Mudkest
MetaForge
Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 19:48:00 -
[236] - Quote
Originally by: Dr Grot
I think this has been already stated in a dev response, from what I gather, players won't be restricted to only piloting the ships of the faction they're fighting for.
You could be a Caldari pilot, flying a Minmatar ship, fighting for Amarr empire in theory.
Any limit on ships race type would be just silly and quite frankly unworkable. You would be penalising those players who invested in training different race ships to take advantage of some of the better classes.
The only restriction might come from the LP store and which faction ships are for sale for each faction. Even so imo not a lot of people would be using their navy ships in pvp unless the prices came down as a result of the more LP players acquire.
you are missing my point entirely. I did NOT ask for restrictions on ships a player can pilot. I asked for different types of ships for different races, for example a heavy destroyer for amar(that ALL players can fly because there are no restrictions like this)
-----
GIEV custom ship paint jobs!
I want my hello-kitty-kessie! |
JonasML
|
Posted - 2007.09.22 21:42:00 -
[237] - Quote
The thing I most want to see is punative expeditions by some of the factions, ie, those who run Guristas missions in venal might suddenly have the Caldari Navy show up, or an alliance might have to defend against the Gallente Federation for having too high a standing with the Caldari State. The same applies to corps, those who have lots of mission runners might have a harder time moving through the opposing faction's space.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 10:38:00 -
[238] - Quote
Originally by: Fergus Runkle
To be honest I cannot understand why this is even up for discussion. Eve is a harsh place, nowhere is safe. We have suiciders in high sec, scammers on contracts, corps that random war dec and choke points into 0.0.
Yes, but then you really should remove caldari & amarr stations from gallente & minmatar space and vice versa, since who'd allow a enemy to build a station within its borders?
At any rate, I'm against removing docking rights, since it will be a significant deterrent towards people joining FW and a big problem because, well, you'll get tons of people accidentally buying stuff from a Amarr/Caldari station in Gallente space and then not being able to pick it up.
Originally by: Fergus Runkle
Negative standings simply has to have meaningful consequences, refused docking is in my opinion the least of things that I would do to someone I see as my enemy.
Yeah, but then stations (especially stations in hostile space) should be attackable and conquerable.
At any rate, I think any messing with the market (like, progressive taxing or even forbidding to buy/sell based on standings) is stupid. Reason?
It'll just make people metagame more, which is not something we really need. Same way with having -5.0 sec status - you have to have alts for transporting & selling stuff, you'll have to have alts for this, too.
I don't think we need more of that 'use alts for x' crap, really.
|
Vort X
EON Order
Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 15:59:00 -
[239] - Quote
The faction warfare would be a great interest for 0.0 residents if the reward system would allow the station owner entities to hire mission agents (for a monthly fee) to their stations, making their space more valuable.
|
Ryan Darkwolf
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.09.24 20:20:00 -
[240] - Quote
8 pages and I have yet to see this either asked or stated:
Will the NPCs start to attack each other?
I mean since it is going to be factional warfare, I was hoping to see massive (or small scale) NPC battles that you can jump in on and help out your chosen faction in?
I can't remember which game it is...but I do remember something like this being in it... some space game that I can't remember...
-------------------
FREE COOKIES and (>^.(>O.O)> HERE |
|
| |
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 |