Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ulphus]

Things that help balance the playing field regardless of numbers on either side, like:
- I-Hubs requiring constant upkeep. Even if nobody's offensively plexing in your system, LP should still need to be funneled into the I-Hub to keep it upgraded.

I'll think this is a good idea when every ship in the game requires upkeep, especially supercaps. Until then, I see no particular reason why it's a good idea. If the opposition run a plex in the system, then you'll need to upkeep it, otherwise it's fine. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

- Make rewards for various accomplishments scale inversely to the amount of space your militia holds. T

Strongly disagree with this. I can't think of a non-gamist reason why this is a good idea. (But as I've noticed before, sometimes my imagination is a bit weak)

[Ulphus]

- In FW, the above options are not available. Once you are out, you are out; there are no allied forces to request to your aid nor any alternate theaters to go fight in. The availability of titans and the geographical relatively short distance between theaters means that any force that comes to dominate one theater will be easily able to influence the other, and vice versa. This is drawn from my direct experience with FW, and talks I've head with people on the other side.

You can't get booted out. The best they can do it boot you back to your faction's highsec. That happened to the Gallente already, they they fought their way back from nothing. I have yet to see any particular reason that any other faction couldn't do the same.

The availability of titans is why I was looking forward to the cyno-jamming. I'd rather they addressed that in some way than made faction warfare more baroque to work around it.

[Jev North]

- Make rewards for various accomplishments scale inversely to the amount of space your militia holds. T

Strongly disagree with this. I can't think of a non-gamist reason why this is a good idea. (But as I've noticed before, sometimes my imagination is a bit weak)

Losing faction attempting to attract more capsuleers by increasing rewards? Makes perfect sense to me. More sense than tying the reward system directly to dominance; while that's the most straightforward coupling, it makes little sense for a faction to pay more and more if their hirelings are already steamrollering the opposition.

You can't get booted out. The best they can do it boot you back to your faction's highsec. That happened to the Gallente already, they they fought their way back from nothing. I have yet to see any particular reason that any other faction couldn't do the same.

If I'm understanding things right, they'll have to fight their way back from nothing while earning a fraction of the LP, being unable to dock at stations, etc? While I suppose it can be done, I don't see the circumstances incentivizing that sort of resurge -- quite the contrary.

[Mithfindel]

On Morwen's suggestion to scale rewards: That has the unfortunate consequence that losing is a favourable outcome. It would be still doable by making LP prices (sink) decrease with diminishing territory but by making LP rewards (faucet) decrease more rapidly. This could be accomplished by for example making the rewards bonuses/maluses linear to amount of territory control (from 0/nSystems to nSystems/nSystems = 1) and the prices some kind of an S-curve.

The result of this would be that having a high degree of territorial control, while good for farming LP, would not be an ideal position to cash the LP out. Similarly, while LP gain would be lower while losing, when the S-curve dives sharper around the midpoint means that any LP gained thus far can be used to buy more toys. For the metagamers, this would mean that a back-and-forth wave motion is preferable to status quo.

Additionally it is notable that both functions (for LP payouts and for costs) cannot be on a linear scale, but instead both halves of the parameter ("number of systems occupied") need to be normalized on the initial amount of systems. (For example, Amarr have fewer "originally Amarr" systems than the Minmatar do. This would mean that in order to reach the equilibrium point between payouts and costs, Amarr would need to hold at least a few Minmatar systems, whereas psychologically, the equilibrium could be thought to be the situation when neither side controls any systems originally belonging to the other.

[Ulphus]

Losing faction attempting to attract more capsuleers by increasing rewards? Makes perfect sense to me. More sense than tying the reward system directly to dominance; while that's the most straightforward coupling, it makes little sense for a faction to pay more and more if their hirelings are already steamrollering the opposition.

"I know you've almost beaten them, but we think this is an ideal time for budget cuts in our loyalty payments division".
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you pay them a bonus to get the job done; over the line; complete? Not reduce their incentive to actually finish it? Paying them more for losing just seems... odd. I guess some people might reinforce failure, rather than success, but it doesn't sound like a good option.

If I'm understanding things right, they'll have to fight their way back from nothing while earning a fraction of the LP, being unable to dock at stations, etc? While I suppose it can be done, I don't see the circumstances incentivizing that sort of resurge -- quite the contrary.

I was under the impression they might be earning 80% of the LP (which is still quite a lot), but yes, paying up to 16 times as much to cash it in means you need to be in it for the long haul I guess.

I'm not in FW because I'm trying to make isk or LP out of it, so I haven't really paid much attention to that stuff. Hmmm

[Lyn Farel]

In the end, I feel like a lot of these ideas seem to hinge on the idea of there being enough people interested in a "good fight" to counteract those interested in total dominance, or that the market will cause more people to join the loosing side take advantage of increased prices.

At first I too thought that you might get a lot of money by joining the losing side and selling their stuff at expensive prices... But I am not even so sure of that, since it will basically be 4 or 5 times more expensive than for the winning side to actually pay the LP store to get them. Maybe at first you will be able to make a lot of profit, but I think the market always tends to adapt and it will end with a standard profit.

- Make rewards for various accomplishments scale inversely to the amount of space your militia holds. T

Strongly disagree with this. I can't think of a non-gamist reason why this is a good idea. (But as I've noticed before, sometimes my imagination is a bit weak)

I don't understand your point. It is actually the exact thing their gamedesign is lacking : a way to counter balance the advantages that the winning side gets and help the losing side not to collapse. Otherwise you just end up in a vicious circle that escalates itself to the inevitable end : one side loses everything. People can still HTFU and work against it, sure, but in the natural order of things it will go that way, and thus favor that way. Thats pure entropy.

- In FW, the above options are not available. Once you are out, you are out; there are no allied forces to request to your aid nor any alternate theaters to go fight in. The availability of titans and the geographical relatively short distance between theaters means that any force that comes to dominate one theater will be easily able to influence the other, and vice versa. This is drawn from my direct experience with FW, and talks I've head with people on the other side.

You can't get booted out. The best they can do it boot you back to your faction's highsec. That happened to the Gallente already, they they fought their way back from nothing. I have yet to see any particular reason that any other faction couldn't do the same.

The availability of titans is why I was looking forward to the cyno-jamming. I'd rather they addressed that in some way than made faction warfare more baroque to work around it.

The context was not similar. The Gallente still had access to their low sec stations, and did not get any significant disadvantages. The only thing that changed for them was an occupancy label on the top left of their screen. The main danger with disadvantages is not the disadvantages in themselves, it is the risk to see the losing side depleting itself of its players.

[Jev North]

Reinforcing failure is a problem, but punishing it would probably be worse. Being on the losing side means you don't have enough guys sitting on plex buttons or shooting the opposing side's guys for you; the way to get more of them would probably not be to cut the reward for doing those things.

[Jade Constantine]

I'd like to see the FW game penalize the losing faction(empire) some more without actually hitting those pilots fighting for the losing faction specifically.

For example, if a side loses its territory to represent the fact its losing the war I'd like to see transaction taxes going up in that faction's Hisec (faction high command clawing back some isk from hisec residents to fund the lowsec war).

Imagine just how exciting FW would get if the Caldari faction losing systems led to increased transaction taxes in Jita? Perhaps this could actually lead to the revitalization of other market hubs. Alternatively maybe the Jita bears would be more inclined to privately fund their miliita fighters to improve their transaction taxes.

This could be mapped on top of the new system pretty tidily I think.

Warzone control

1 terrible LP rewards - Emergency Transaction Tax Penalty in Empire Hisec
2 poor LP rewards -Increased Transaction Tax Penalty in Empire Hisec
3 Average LP rewards - Status Quo - Transaction Charges as Now
4 Good LP rewards - War Boon - Transaction Charges Reduced
5 excellent LP rewards - Victory Boon 0 Transaction Charges Reduced Significantly

The real payoff for this would be that the relative attractiveness of the 4 imperial trade hubs (jita, amarr, rens, dodixie) would change over time to reflect the result of faction warfare success and failure and stop being a static no-brainer as now.

One's faction getting hammered in FW will involve hisec players hoping to play the markets and trade their goods and hopefully encourage them to get involved.

Non faction war trade hubs (yulai, ammatar space etc) would have the virtue of stability without the immediate threat of bonus or penalty tariffs.

Consider this a proposal to spread the pain (and benefits) a little more widely and make the systems of Faction Warfare impact the rest of the server far more significantly than even FW 2.0 does.

Everyone in the known universe buys and sells from Jita (on alts if nothing else) - lets have the fortune's of the Jita market tied in some way to the fortunes of Caldari FW (and same for the other empires and hubs).

[Mathra Hiede]

I'd like to see FW penalize the losing faction some more without actually hitting those pilots fighting for the losing faction specifically. For example, if a side loses its territory to represent the fact its losing the war I'd like to see transaction taxes going up in that faction's Hisec (faction high command clawing back some isk from hisec residents to fund the lowsec war).

Imagine just how exciting FW would get if the Caldari faction losing systems led to increased transaction taxes in Jita. Perhaps this could actually lead to the revitalization of other market hubs. Alternatively maybe the Jita bears would be more inclined to privately fund their miliita fighters to improve their transaction taxes.

Thats... actually a really cool idea. I would hate to see the work required but I think if it was balanced properly then this would be very interesting and much more a tangible result.

[Jade Constantine]

I'd like to see FW penalize the losing faction some more without actually hitting those pilots fighting for the losing faction specifically. For example, if a side loses its territory to represent the fact its losing the war I'd like to see transaction taxes going up in that faction's Hisec (faction high command clawing back some isk from hisec residents to fund the lowsec war).

Imagine just how exciting FW would get if the Caldari faction losing systems led to increased transaction taxes in Jita. Perhaps this could actually lead to the revitalization of other market hubs. Alternatively maybe the Jita bears would be more inclined to privately fund their miliita fighters to improve their transaction taxes.

Thats... actually a really cool idea. I would hate to see the work required but I think if it was balanced properly then this would be very interesting and much more a tangible result.

Well it all depends on CCP being prepared to code a variable modifier system into transaction taxes (and discriminate between empires) and tie it into the five levels of warzone control represented in FW 2.0.

[Kazzzi]

I'd like to see the FW game penalize the losing faction(empire) some more without actually hitting those pilots fighting for the losing faction specifically.

For example, if a side loses its territory to represent the fact its losing the war I'd like to see transaction taxes going up in that faction's Hisec (faction high command clawing back some isk from hisec residents to fund the lowsec war).

I love this idea, a lot, but I also love hundreds of other dynamic-mechanic ideas that CCP will never ever ever ever attempt to write code for.


FW 2.0? Too little, too late. I have a strong feeling history will repeat itself and whatever watered down content they do actually implement will be done clumsily and so the players will just abuse and min-max it to the point it loses what little potential fun it might have. If I am proven wrong, after I recover from the heart attack I will be pleasantly surprised.

[Myyona]

I'd like to see FW penalize the losing faction some more without actually hitting those pilots fighting for the losing faction specifically. For example, if a side loses its territory to represent the fact its losing the war I'd like to see transaction taxes going up in that faction's Hisec (faction high command clawing back some isk from hisec residents to fund the lowsec war).

Imagine just how exciting FW would get if the Caldari faction losing systems led to increased transaction taxes in Jita. Perhaps this could actually lead to the revitalization of other market hubs. Alternatively maybe the Jita bears would be more inclined to privately fund their miliita fighters to improve their transaction taxes.

Do not like it at all.

It is much easier to simply reallocate to a new trade hub than trying to turn the tide of FW for the single pilot so that would be the choice for many (myself included). Eventually the most successful FW faction will have the major trade hub only enforcing its dominance. Alternatively Yulai could be the major trade hub again.

Besides, I am generally not in favor of letting one game mechanic and play style getting dominance over other others. People are not going to sign up for FW if they like to produce and trade; they will either find a way around it or quit.

[Rodj Blake]

All of the changes are meaningless without NPC re-balancing.

[Alain Colcer]

All of the changes are meaningless without NPC re-balancing.

i like "most" of the changes, others not so much, but the above still holds 99% of the issues with FW to be honest.

[Gottii]

All of the changes are meaningless without NPC re-balancing.

This.