15
16

How would you improve faction warfare? (self.fweddit)

Fel Wrathemccrckn[!]による前の投稿

Like the title says. How would you improve faction warfare? Looking for simple improvements...not vast overhauls. Upvote the ones you like. Downvote the ones that are terribad or too complicated to be practical.

all 61 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 25 ポイント26 ポイント 前

I'll start with my thoughts.

Minimum ship sizes for counting down fw sites Have a minimum ship size that can count down a fw site. For instance a large site lets any ship type in however only a BC and above can count the timer down. The goal here is to push the use of larger ships in faction warfare. It will also make farming of fw medium and large sites a bit more risky.

Example sizes could be:

  • novice : frig minimum

  • small : same as novice

  • medium : cruiser minimum

  • large : BC minimum

[–]Kaellan 6 ポイント7 ポイント 前

Plus one for this idea. Altering the paradigm to encourage the usage of larger hulls would definitely shake things up.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I see overtanked BS's fitting small weapons if this were done. Would make for some interesting site running fits and fights.

[–]DrHexxz 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Qqq

[–]frankster 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

wat but they just shook it up to encourage the use of smaller ships! Is this now a problem?

[–]PvP_Noob 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

as a pirate who is tired of only seeing big ships on gates where the sentries will blap me, please please please implement this.

I would love to score more solo kills of cruisers and above in a solo frig :)

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント 前

amirite?

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I really like this idea

[–]Maegor StarkVaethin 18 ポイント19 ポイント 前

Pirate faction frigates should not be able to enter novice plexes, just sayin ...

[–]PeacecrafttWingZeroType 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I agree. I'm not sure why CCP felt that t1 frigs and pirate faction frigs were in the same competitive band. Unless you're just looking at the kitey T1 frigs...

[–]Maegor StarkVaethin 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

Well Dramiels beat anything kitey :p

Ok, it's kind of understandable that Tech II frigates are a whole new level, compared to Tech Is (Resists, 4 boni + Role Bonus) but still .... so are pirate faction frigates.

Just feels so unsatisfying when you get chased out of your novice plex by a 2006 character in a Dramiel ...

[–]Mr Turing | HR DirectorMordekain 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

The problem is that from a coding standpoint, there's no difference between any t1 frig, from the Venture to the Daredevil, they're all the same.

[–]Skuto 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Uh, can just block anything with the pirate faction flag.

[–]michael chasseur [FW0RT]dragonstalking 21 ポイント22 ポイント 前

i would add a "Corporate LP tax" so that plexxing could actually mean something in terms of income for your corporation

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

I love that idea. Corps could even use that LP to upgrade systems rather than request players donate their lp.

[–]Diesel Ragethornarmagin 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Love it love it LOVE IT! This would be a great for upgrading systems and paying out a % LP during fleet fights would be awesome too! It would stack up pretty quickly.

[–]edeity | Abbot of [AMONK]edeity 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Must recruit more farmers....

[–]Rina Kondur | CEOTheRealYou 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I know I asked for something similar to this last year, and it's been talked about by a lot of people. The problem you face when building and running a FW corporation or alliance is that you can't make an income at the corp level doing what your corporation does.

For example, a nullsec corp is able to make income from ratting taxes, moons, PI, etc. Things that generally a nullsec corporation already does.

If you want to build a corp and focus purely on FW, you can't really do any corp funded programs. All our funding comes from outside activities not even remotely involved in FW. It'd really be nice to get a tax much like other corps benefit from.

[–]Spitt1e 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

This...fucking this! I dont know how I can say it louder besides cursing...fuck!

TL:DR Point 1:Make it corp owned to encurage ppl leaving NPC corps as well as make the space worth fighting for. Point 2: Fuck farmers

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

Give a small system control bonus for successfully defending an ihub in a vulnerable system

When a system goes vulnerable the system's ihub's shield drop to some level say 75%. "Incapping" the ihub successfully switches system control like normal. Repping the ihub back to 100% shields drops the system control back down to some percentage like 95%. Ihub shield HP can be adjusted so that the amount of damage needed to get through the shields stays the same.

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

And the ihub shield regens so if a system goes vulnerable and is then ignored, the shield will regen over time (maybe 4hours) and the system control will drop to 95%.

[–]RommellDrako 10 ポイント11 ポイント 前

Id like to see kills made in system work towards %. I dont know the math. But lets make it easy. Each site pushes .5%. Or 15k LP equals .5%. So if 15k of lp is paid during a fight in system is should push the system in that direction.

This would actually make pvp relevant in fw instead of the site racing and repositioning.

[–]Milton Middleson [RLING]Crownie 7 ポイント8 ポイント 前

Stuff like this has been proposed before, and the problem with it is that it punishes you even more for trying to defend (or attack) if you're at a disadvantage, since fighting and losing winds up being worse than not fighting at all.

P.S. All plexes have the same VP consequences.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

solid point. As an alternative, losses in sites can move the site's timer closer to completion for that side. The amount of time gained/lost is based on the lp value of the ship with a cap at say 5 minutes (regardless of how many people you've killed in a site you'll always have at least 5 minutes on the countdown.) Your point is still valid here but the consequences are less severe. The winner will probably finish the sites anyways...losing your ship to the winner only enables the winner(s) to spend less time in the site than normal.

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

Too easy to farm with your throwaway alt on the other side.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I suppose you mean have your throwaway alt killed by your main? It is farmable but I don't know if would be practical. The amount of lp you get from blowing someone up is only a percentage of their ship hull value/tech level/etc. So you'd be throwing away lots of isk just to push a system.

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I was thinking of using this mechanism to push system control. Currently you are limited by the rate at which plex spawn. Even if you are completely uncontested there is a limit on how fast you can push a system.

If you had a way to push the contested level via PvP kills, then you can just throw ISK (hulls for your alt) at the problem and push the contested level much faster.

[–]RommellDrako 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

There is always an exploit but yes. The lp paid is based on the insurance I think from the hull. If someone wants to throw away expensive ships just to push a system faster be n y guest. The amount of isk value per ship to lp gained to push isnt worth it.

[–]Danny_Ronin 7 ポイント8 ポイント 前

Increase the spawn rates for large plexes. We all love our frigs and cruisers, but many of us don't get many opportunities to pvp in larger ships.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I would support this only if http://www.reddit.com/r/fweddit/comments/1cguex/how_would_you_improve_faction_warfare/c9gce2w was also implemented.

[–]Avarice991 8 ポイント9 ポイント 前

  • Timer resets. If all plex contestants warp out or cloak inside a given plex, that plex instantly resets to zero and spawns a new NPC. If a plex contestant is unable to defend a plex, that plex is lost.
  • Timer rollbacks. If a plex contestant remains on grid but outside the capture radius, the timer rolls back to zero, regardless of who is within the capture radius (opposing militia/neutrals both cause the plex to roll back)
  • Abandoning a plex causes faction standing loss, and make recycling alts to avoid this penalty bannable. Lock farmers out of faction war.
  • Warp stabs prohibit plex capture. Ships with warp stabs, and ventures, are ignored by plexes.

Edit:

  • Assign a CCP team member to look at the Warfare and Tactics forum once in a while.

[–]Mr Turing | HR DirectorMordekain 9 ポイント10 ポイント 前

  • Ventures should be locked out, there's no reason to use them ever.
  • I think instead of instantly reseting, having it roll back is smoother. Out of capture radius? rollback.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 8 ポイント9 ポイント 前

+1 for the warp stab prohibition!

[–]bairy 5 ポイント6 ポイント 前

I disagree with the "abandon it, get penalised" sentiment. There are times when you're in a system full of neutrals, can see several ships mounting on the gate and you know you don't have the slightest hope of winning. Leaving isn't pussying out, it's common sense.

I definitely agree with no warp stabs allowed although in my experience people who don't feel like taking you on have gone before you've even got into the plex.

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

  • I'm not so sure about an instant reset. I think the timer should just count back up to it's initial state if there is no one in the plex.

[–]Avarice991 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Why?

My original intent for this particular suggestion was to make shutting down farmers an extremely time-efficient activity - if a neutral needs to sit for a plex for 15 minutes to reverse a farmer's work while the timer ticks down, the farmer wins - the neutral gets nothing out of it (neither does a wartarget), so there is no incentive to sit in the plex, waiting.

By resetting the plex, the farmer instantly loses all the work he put into capturing the plex the moment he is chased out, making tactics like opening all the plexes in a system and warping between them no longer profitable. The farmer can no longer "out-patience" the PvPer - the instant a PvPer comes into system, he/she can nearly instantly shut down all in-progress farming by warping from plex to plex. People who want to actually fight for their plexes are free to do so, on the understanding that if they fail to defend their in-progress plex, they lose their progress. Kinda like how if you fail something like a mission, you don't get "partial LP" for killing 3/4 of the NPCs.

This may seem harsh, but I see FW farming like AFK ice mining - as long as a single sliver of ice remains in highsec, hundreds of bots and AFKers will farm it. As long as it is at all possible to farm FW profitably, 95% of non-"home" systems will be home to FW farmers.

[–]PeacecrafttWingZeroType 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

Change T1 warzone control to something like 85% LP payouts of normal instead of the current 50%. The current system is a positive feedback system, where once one side starts losing warzone control it is given less incentive to continue fighting for warzone control since it gets significantly less payout than their enemies will get.

This will help avoid the current stale situation in Amarr/Minmatar where one side has been sitting in T1 and the other side has been sitting in T4 for weeks without either side really doing much about it. If it is easier to get back into T2/T3 range both sides will constantly be fighting for warzone control and there will be more pvp action as a result.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 3 ポイント4 ポイント 前

I think the Amarr stakeholders just want to see their market prices go up before they try to push warzone control again.

[–]PeacecrafttWingZeroType 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Makes sense. Too bad for me I've already sold most of my Amarr lp stuff. I'd like more fights!

[–]weaselyvr 4 ポイント5 ポイント 前

  1. Mission rats of your faction will not shoot you. It makes absolutely no sense for me to warp in on a war target and get blapped by my own faction. They don't shoot me in plexes, they shouldn't shoot me in missions.

  2. Restrict stealth bomber access/make missions harder/ reduce mission LP rewards. Any one, or a combination, of these would certainly change missions up. It would make LP harder to come by because missions are effectively zero-risk money.

  3. Rolling timers: if you have more people in the plex, the timer counts down faster. This makes systems flip faster, forces the opposing militia to react faster, and will create an overall more dynamic war zone.

  4. Lock out neutrals from plexes. They can sit in system. They can camp star- and acceleration, and stations, but they cannot activate plex gates.

  5. As others have said, pirate frigates in novices. Navy frigs are tougher, but definitely still doable in a tech 1 frig. That dramiel zooming around you or that 500 dps daredevil in a novice are ridiculous.

  6. Warzone control degrades faster. If your faction is not actively plexing a system, it's contested % drops. Again, leads to a more dynamic war zone.

  7. If the ihub becomes vulnerable and you fail to capture or, the system drops down to 50% contested (or maybe 75%). There should be a consequence for failing to take a hub.

EDIT: I forgot one. You don't get LP for plexing in your allied war zone. You can still go fight over there, but you don't get LP. That'll help stop a lot of the farmers.

[–]Avarice991 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

Lock out neutrals from plexes. They can sit in system. They can camp star- and acceleration, and stations, but they cannot activate plex gates.

Neutrals must be allowed into plexes to fight the farmer scourge - realistically, members of the opposing militia aren't going to have enough coverage of the warzone to shut down farmers effectively (because they live in their home systems, which can be defended with a coordinated militia effort to prevent it form flipping). This task falls almost exclusively to (the handful of) roamers, and neutrals who live in faction war space, but outside the home systems.

Besides, neutrals means more PvP, why would that be a bad thing?

[–]Beta Sequencee-jammer 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

I agree. All your other points are excellent and I'd lime to hear why you don't want neuts in plexes, but they do provide me at least with a lot of very fun PvP.

[–]weaselyvr -2 ポイント-1 ポイント 前

Because if you're in it only for the fights, there's absolutely no reason to be in faction warfare. The logic of "free targets" breaks down at that level because you quite literally (more than) double your potential targets. Being in faction warfare should mean something, and not just access to an isk faucet.

Having them in space is potential enough for fights.

[–]Avarice991 2 ポイント3 ポイント 前

I'm... really not sure what's wrong with neutrals having double the number of potential targets.

Besides, allowing neutrals into plexes only hurts farmers (who want the LP, but refuse to fight). I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.

[–]weaselyvr -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

I'm not saying anything about there being anything wrong with neutrals having double the targets.

My biggest issue is that faction warfare really means nothing, I suppose. As I said above, if all you want are fights, there is no reason to be in FW.

[–]lolthr0w 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Mission rats of your faction will not shoot you. It makes absolutely no sense for me to warp in on a war target and get blapped by my own faction. They don't shoot me in plexes, they shouldn't shoot me in missions.

Sure it does. A mechanic like that would be easily abused by allowing aggro-proof logi or free mission running by using an alt from an enemy faction. Now restricting agression to shooting back after being shot might be a better option, but still doesn't fix the possibility of keeping around aggro-proof neutral logi.

[–]weaselyvr 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

That's a good and fair point. I hadn't thought of that.

If that were the case, they'd have to use flagging otherwise you still have the issue of logi not getting aggro.

[–]MurkyLurky 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Downvoted because you dont like stealth bombers. How else are we going to.complete the missions if every place is gate camped or packed with enemies.

[–]Kale FreemanMrFreeman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Chase away the enemies first?

[–]nystark 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

I would like to see defensive sites that require small gangs to defend. Something along the lines of small scale incursions in FW space would be amazing.

[–]Mr Turing | HR DirectorMordekain 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Once an iHub goes vulnerable, there should be a timer to start shooting it, if you don't do X% damage to it in Y time it becomes D-plexable, say an amarr ihub is vulnerable, amarr form up and go to it, doesn't let minmatar hit it so the very iHub becomes a d-plex site (maybe with BC+BS spawns so it requires some force to do it).

Makes holding the system doable, right now you'd have to sit there with a fleet until downtime or until dozens of plexes have been run, still, only to have it all undone in the next timezone.

[–]S1r DigbyChickenCaesarDigbyCaesar 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Remove Milita chat. Make Minmatards fight.

[–][deleted] 前

[deleted]

[–]BroDiazapan 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Mission farmers would upset that little ):

[–]Linneth AeleApocalypseWoodsman 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

Make every part of lowsec be claimable by any faction, and make every NPC faction (pirates, empires, jove, and sansha) be something any pod pilot can join.

[–]BRIMTAKRadioactivePandaBear 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I would just get rid of missions in general or make the lp payout less than an average plex site per missions to discourage stealth bomber faggotry and encourage more pvp.

I would also consider making all plexes large plexes and removing the gates from all plexes. Maybe making the capture radius larger to 50m to promote more arena style pvp, and also consider making leaving a plex before you capture it give a negative consequence (such as resetting the timer).

Also, possibly lowering the spawn rate of plexes while increasing their capture bonus to the system.

[–]Tiinpa -1 ポイント0 ポイント 前

Change the current large into an extra-large or unlimited plex. Add a large plex that has a minimum size to enter. IE, you can only activate the gate with a cruiser, BC or BS hull.

[–]Fel Wrathemccrckn[S,!] 0 ポイント1 ポイント 前

I don't think the frig fleets should be inhibited by minimum size gate restrictions. Frigs should be able to get into any site. I just think they shouldn't be able to countdown some of the larger sites.

[–]Tiinpa 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

Frigs have their place, but I think the big ships deserve one battlefield all their own. It's the exact opposite of the safety frigs have in small/novice currently.

[–]mokatha -4 ポイント-3 ポイント 前

Make it so one side can only have a maximum of 500 people more than the opposing side

[–][deleted] 前

[deleted]

[–]Typo Interobangthey_call_me_hey_you 1 ポイント2 ポイント 前

I do not think this would work the way that you think it would work.