CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

DJ FunkyBacon for CSM9

First post
Author
Monkeys with Guns.
#41 - 2014-02-27 00:04:51 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Really like the LP tax system; it would allow corps to make some income and possibly enable things like SRPs for FW corps. It would also make it a lot easier to do tier pushes, since it could be done more from the corp / executive level. Might reduce leeching to some degree.

It would also let you have a tax for NPC militia corps...

Some other thoughts I'd like your comments on:

1. How would you solve the negative aspects of timer rollbacks? Especially with regards to how it penalizes an attacker? How are rollbacks better than a dual timer setup?

2. How would you incentivize deplexing? At the moment it's a massive chore that's not worth doing to PvP focused FW pilots. Siting in a novice plex for 19 minutes to get 800 LP at the end is just a massive time suck with crap risk / reward. (Risk here being that's 19 minutes you could be out roaming looking for fights, not the risk of getting one). Fixed LP payouts not scaled to contested percentage? Automatic "LP tax" sent to the iHub to prevent tier drops?

3. What would you change to incentivize actually living in the warzone and upgrading systems? At the moment there's a huge imbalance between the folks who have the ******* to live and work in the warzone, and who contribute to system upgrades - and the mission alts that leech off the higher tier LP payouts.


1. With timer rollbacks, it could penalize the defender as well. Just so I know we're on the same page, what I am talking about is a steady count back to neutral when no one is in range of the button. If you're being penalized, it is because you cloaked or bailed out of the plex when someone showed up. It's not going to count any faster than if the enemy stayed there to push it, and will stop again once it's smack in the middle. I don't see much of a negative here, but if you have a situation where it would be unfair, please give it to me and I'll clarify.

2. That's a tough one. D-Plexing should in no way be as rewarding as O-plexing. You don't even need to fit a gun to do it. I'm actually relatively happy with how it's set up, but as there is a 75% ceiling, maybe a 25% floor would be in order. If that's something people wanted, I'd get behind that. I think we have to be really careful with this, because with a decent reward, suddenly D-plexing becomes more farmer friendly than what we have currently, and I'd really like to see mass low-risk farming curbed a bit.

3. I've said elsewhere that I'm really not happy with the upgrade bonuses for systems as they stand now. The quote I made was "It seems to me that CCP was so afraid of making upgrade bonuses for FW systems too good, they didn't make them very good at all". Present bonuses are useless in roughly 1/3 of gallente/caldari FW space, and a slightly smaller % of min/amarr due to having no stations in system. The only bonus I would consider even half decent would be the clone cost one, and that's useful in maybe what? 20% of the systems? Probably more like 10-15%. Outside of tier pushes the FW upgrade system is nearly 100% pointless, and yes, I would like to see things changed.

Considering fully upgrading a system to 5 (not really counting a high warzone tier tax on the donations) costs several hundred million ISK worth of LP, I think more meaningful upgrades are in order besides a clone discount and a few extra manufacturing slots that aren't really needed in the first place. On top of that, I seriously doubt much of that donated LP comes from the farmers taking advantage of the huge payouts those tier levels enable.

In short, I'd like to see system upgrades do more to benefit the people making their home and living in a given system.... maybe even allow the person donating the LP and upgrading the system to pick from a list of bonuses to enable with their donation. Having to upgrade a stationless system with no strategic benefit aside from an LP dump to reach a higher tier is beyond dumb.

X Gallentius wrote:

One incremental solution to farmer problem. Increase gate activation range to 2500m

Support this and you have my vote. Big smile (You have my vote anyways)

That I would have to think on a bit. In the situation given for the astero, yes, I like that. But I also see some potential benefits to cloaky farmers as well. I don't think there is any one change that is going to curb FW mass farming. It's going to take several. Timer rollbacks is a start. I think a rebalance on WCS is another. While we look at what we can do to deter mass farming though, we also need to take time to consider the changes don't also impact people actually playing the game in a negative way either.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#42 - 2014-02-27 06:19:16 UTC
Hello everyone,

You can find DJ FunkyBacon's interview which he had with me at the following link:

Mp3 Download Link:
http://www.legacyofacapsuleer.com/mp3/CSM9_interview_04_DJ_FunkyBacon.mp3

Watch It On YouTube At:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF2FsypxD4g

Hope you guys enjoy the interview and I hope you get to know DJ FunkyBacon a bit better.

Greetz & thanks,

Tyrant Scorn
Shadow Cartel
#43 - 2014-02-27 09:32:58 UTC
I'm very glad that you're running, Funky. For as long as I've been playing I've watched you contribute so much to EVE, and have no doubt that your invariably well-conveyed wisdom and clear passion for the betterment of this game will serve us all well. Even the guys who fit 4 warp core stabs to their cloaky tech 1 FW frigates, whether they realize it or not :)

Spaceship Bebop
#44 - 2014-02-27 16:02:32 UTC
Thanks for your replies. I put a lot more about my thoughts on plex rewards here, which might explain a bit more my view of risk / reward etc in plexing.

As far as rollbacks go, I'm not in favor for two main reasons.

First, it allows a pilot to impact the capturing of a plex without having to put themselves at risk by actually being inside it. That's a terrible idea IMO.

Second, it feeds into the disparity in effort required to capture a plex. If someone comes into a novice and runs the timer for 5 minutes, you currently have to spend 15 minutes to cap it after you force them out. If the rollback is implemented, you can force them out, then go do something else - and come back to only have to put in 10 minutes. On the other hand, that other pilot would now have to spend 5 minutes + timer decay, in addition to the 5 minutes he already put in, to capture the plex.

You're basically just reversing the current burden. That's not really an improvement.

Dual timers is about the only mechanism I can see that would be a) relatively simple to implement, b) hard to game, and c) demands equal time in the plex from each side to capture it, regardless of the back - and - forth. It should also, in heavily contested systems, result in more conflict - that plex is only going to be up for so long maximum, and it will result in situations where it'd be worth going in against heavy odds because all you need to do is hold the warpin for another 30 seconds.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Monkeys with Guns.
#45 - 2014-02-27 16:14:28 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Thanks for your replies. I put a lot more about my thoughts on plex rewards here, which might explain a bit more my view of risk / reward etc in plexing.

As far as rollbacks go, I'm not in favor for two main reasons.

First, it allows a pilot to impact the capturing of a plex without having to put themselves at risk by actually being inside it. That's a terrible idea IMO.

Second, it feeds into the disparity in effort required to capture a plex. If someone comes into a novice and runs the timer for 5 minutes, you currently have to spend 15 minutes to cap it after you force them out. If the rollback is implemented, you can force them out, then go do something else - and come back to only have to put in 10 minutes. On the other hand, that other pilot would now have to spend 5 minutes + timer decay, in addition to the 5 minutes he already put in, to capture the plex.

You're basically just reversing the current burden. That's not really an improvement.

Dual timers is about the only mechanism I can see that would be a) relatively simple to implement, b) hard to game, and c) demands equal time in the plex from each side to capture it, regardless of the back - and - forth. It should also, in heavily contested systems, result in more conflict - that plex is only going to be up for so long maximum, and it will result in situations where it'd be worth going in against heavy odds because all you need to do is hold the warpin for another 30 seconds.


If you force someone out and then leave to do something else while the timer counts back to neutral, there's really nothing stopping that person from coming back in and running it further is there? Here's why I'm not too much a fan of dual timers. Often times, in a hotly contested system, there is a tug of war for plexes. One side gets forced off while another moves in. It takes some time for reshiping and getting the fleet back on field. I've been in fights where a plex has changed hands 3 or 4 times. That is helped greatly by having the single tug of war timer.

I guess where I'm trying to get at, is if you abandon your plex, and the guy that forced you out does too, it's your own fault for not going back in and getting the timer ticking back in your favor again.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Spaceship Bebop
#46 - 2014-02-27 17:10:27 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Here's why I'm not too much a fan of dual timers. Often times, in a hotly contested system, there is a tug of war for plexes. One side gets forced off while another moves in. It takes some time for reshiping and getting the fleet back on field. I've been in fights where a plex has changed hands 3 or 4 times. That is helped greatly by having the single tug of war timer.


Personally, I see that as a positive - you get more fights, and there's more incentive to stay and fight rather than Benny Hill around. It does give more strength to blobs, and definitely rewards folks who can reship quickly. Rewarding proper preparation and logistics is a good thing IMO.

The downside to a plex changing hands multiple times is that there's still a set time until the next one spawns. If you spend an hour fighting over a small plex, that's 1-2 fewer small plexes that will spawn that day in that system. Limiting the total time a plex could be occupied - through dual timers - you increase the number of plexes per day that spawn in that system. This would mean more fights per day in more plexes, and a greater impact to contested percentage per day as well.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Monkeys with Guns.
#47 - 2014-02-27 17:18:17 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Here's why I'm not too much a fan of dual timers. Often times, in a hotly contested system, there is a tug of war for plexes. One side gets forced off while another moves in. It takes some time for reshiping and getting the fleet back on field. I've been in fights where a plex has changed hands 3 or 4 times. That is helped greatly by having the single tug of war timer.


Personally, I see that as a positive - you get more fights, and there's more incentive to stay and fight rather than Benny Hill around. It does give more strength to blobs, and definitely rewards folks who can reship quickly. Rewarding proper preparation and logistics is a good thing IMO.

The downside to a plex changing hands multiple times is that there's still a set time until the next one spawns. If you spend an hour fighting over a small plex, that's 1-2 fewer small plexes that will spawn that day in that system. Limiting the total time a plex could be occupied - through dual timers - you increase the number of plexes per day that spawn in that system. This would mean more fights per day in more plexes, and a greater impact to contested percentage per day as well.


And then of course, part of the reason for timer rollbacks is to make farming less efficient. Dual timers completely negates that, since cloaky stabbed farmer loses no time and can just pick his timer back up where he left off if you don't stay.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Spaceship Bebop
#48 - 2014-02-27 17:29:05 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Veskrashen wrote:
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Here's why I'm not too much a fan of dual timers. Often times, in a hotly contested system, there is a tug of war for plexes. One side gets forced off while another moves in. It takes some time for reshiping and getting the fleet back on field. I've been in fights where a plex has changed hands 3 or 4 times. That is helped greatly by having the single tug of war timer.


Personally, I see that as a positive - you get more fights, and there's more incentive to stay and fight rather than Benny Hill around. It does give more strength to blobs, and definitely rewards folks who can reship quickly. Rewarding proper preparation and logistics is a good thing IMO.

The downside to a plex changing hands multiple times is that there's still a set time until the next one spawns. If you spend an hour fighting over a small plex, that's 1-2 fewer small plexes that will spawn that day in that system. Limiting the total time a plex could be occupied - through dual timers - you increase the number of plexes per day that spawn in that system. This would mean more fights per day in more plexes, and a greater impact to contested percentage per day as well.


And then of course, part of the reason for timer rollbacks is to make farming less efficient. Dual timers completely negates that, since cloaky stabbed farmer loses no time and can just pick his timer back up where he left off if you don't stay.


Of course, you'll only stick around if it doesn't screw you to do so. With Dual Timers, you never have to spend more time than the base plex requirement to complete it.

The reason people don't stick around is because the time burden is so much greater than any potential reward.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Monkeys with Guns.
#49 - 2014-02-28 02:18:43 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ FunkyBacon
Veskrashen wrote:


Of course, you'll only stick around if it doesn't screw you to do so. With Dual Timers, you never have to spend more time than the base plex requirement to complete it.

The reason people don't stick around is because the time burden is so much greater than any potential reward.


I don't really think a lack of people willing to spin timers on buttons is an issue, even if they have to wait for a bit longer of a timer in some of these cases. It sounds more to me like you don't like plexing, and I don't blame you. I don't care for it either unless I'm getting fights, or we're trying hard to take a system.

I'm going to make something very plain about my platform. I have no interest in seeing FW plexing become any more LP/Isk efficient than it already is. If anything, it needs a couple tweaks to make it LESS enticing to farmers, not more. I would like to see better rewards for plexing in small gangs though. Something closer to how incursion payouts work.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Spaceship Bebop
#50 - 2014-02-28 15:14:57 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
I don't really think a lack of people willing to spin timers on buttons is an issue, even if they have to wait for a bit longer of a timer in some of these cases. It sounds more to me like you don't like plexing, and I don't blame you. I don't care for it either unless I'm getting fights, or we're trying hard to take a system.

I'm going to make something very plain about my platform. I have no interest in seeing FW plexing become any more LP/Isk efficient than it already is. If anything, it needs a couple tweaks to make it LESS enticing to farmers, not more. I would like to see better rewards for plexing in small gangs though. Something closer to how incursion payouts work.


I don't mind offensive plexing - most of JUSTK's casual fleets are plexing fleets. I don't even mind defensive plexing, really - the rewards are crap compared to offensive plexing, especially when you're doing it to keep home systems stable. Which is why I use an alt with a quad-stabbed Incursus, so my main can do better reward per time activities.

What I dislike is the huge disparity in effort required to complete a plex, and the huge disparity in rewards. Offensive plexing shouldn't give 10-150x as many LP as defensive plexing, and it shouldn't take me twice as long to complete it. I took the risk of rushing a plex and fighting for it - I shouldn't have to put in extra work to get less rewards because of it.

Fix the time disparity, equalize the rewards to some degree (fixed 50% or so of the offensive plexing rewards) and folks will actually have a viable incentive to stay in a plex after forcing a farmer out.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Monkeys with Guns.
#51 - 2014-03-01 01:08:20 UTC
I support FunkyBacon!
#52 - 2014-03-01 01:21:07 UTC
im all up for fixes in the game but my concern is the the character transfer fee i can understand why but i miss there being no transfer fee. It was free then it went up to 10$ now its 20$ id like to see it reduced or eliminated due to the fact that there are some players out there living on plex's and now with the ability to train and use the other two toons on the accounts they would like to save money to move them to one account. I know some people would like to move their mains from their other accounts to one to make it easier. I know i am one that would like to but atm my financial situation is thin. I wonder out of which one of the CSM canidates will try to fix or attempt to fix it
Monkeys with Guns.
#53 - 2014-03-01 03:33:49 UTC
Spectr StormShadow wrote:
im all up for fixes in the game but my concern is the the character transfer fee i can understand why but i miss there being no transfer fee. It was free then it went up to 10$ now its 20$ id like to see it reduced or eliminated due to the fact that there are some players out there living on plex's and now with the ability to train and use the other two toons on the accounts they would like to save money to move them to one account. I know some people would like to move their mains from their other accounts to one to make it easier. I know i am one that would like to but atm my financial situation is thin. I wonder out of which one of the CSM canidates will try to fix or attempt to fix it


Can't you burn a plex to transfer a character? Admittedly, I haven't sold a character since 2004 so I'm not too familiar with this issue, but I'd like to know more.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#54 - 2014-03-01 23:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
Greetings Mr. Funky of the Bacon!

First and foremost, my name is Azami....that should be obvious!

Secondly, I am a fan of your show. I don't get a chance to listen to it every weekend/to it's full extent. But I do listen when I can. Keep up the work in that regards, doing a really good job and awesome show!

Now, that we have that small introduction out of the way here.

I was listening to your last show....but missed the last half (IRL/Fiance) which happens!

But, I did take note on how you were displeased about the "AFK Farmers" in FW. I'll quote my own thread here, with an idea on how to "fix" this idea. Regardless if either one of us gets a seat, this point will be pushed. As I've spent a few years in FW and know how it works.

Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

The only issue I have is how it turned into LP mining. I.E. Warp Core Stabs. Several people made proposals, some have focused on the removal of the module. The modules and ships are fine! What needs to change is how systems can be captured.....more exactly in what order.

Keep in mind, this is only an opinion.

FW system capture should work SIMILAR to nullsec. Not entirely! Keep how the systems get captured. IT STAYS THE SAME!....leave that aspect alone! But change the order in which they're captured. Make it so one system can be contested only if the Faction in question controls the one beside it. For simplicity, think connect the dots. It's silly that someone can go to a random ass system and contest it when it's deep within enemy territory.

This would have a 2 pronged effect. It would force fighting to a front line and not scattered, and encourage teamwork within the Factions. This would reduce the "WCS Farming" that's an ongoing issue. As there's more risk involved and harassment.


In either thread, post a reply to this. Just so I can get feedback and possibly work with you in a effort to find a way to make lowsec and FW better and more enjoyable for the people who play.

Cheers!

- Azami

...

Monkeys with Guns.
#55 - 2014-03-02 22:02:40 UTC
Greetings Azami-san,

I don't think you have so much of a bad idea, as what you are suggesting would concentrate PVP to a more limited number of systems, but I don't think it will solve the issues. Furthermore, when one side pins the other to 1 or 2 or 3 systems, it just invites an absolute stomping that will be VERY difficult for the losing side to push out of. What happens if one side for example takes the whole zone, which happened as recently as January of 2013? I believe both the minmatar and amarr have been pushed to a single system since that time as well.

Farmers don't take sov in FW. They might run up a contested % in a backwater system, but they never have an effect on any system that's actually being fought over actively. You generally won't find stabbed/cloaked farmers operating in enemy home systems for example. It's not efficient, and too likely that a defender will show up and push you out. since farmers generally can't fight, they have no way to hold a plex once someone in a combat ship shows up, they can only run. The more running they do, the less LP they are making.

There was a time when WCS didn't have any drawbacks. They were used by risk averse PVPers, generally in shield PVP ships to engage people. If they got the kill, great. If it looked like they would lose, they would warp off. This was unintended apparently, so WCS were nerfed with penalties to scan res and lock range. Now they are the defacto "I don't want to PVP" mod. FW plexes are designed to be PVP catalysts. To have people running them and profiting from them in ships clearly fit to AVOID PvP is a kick in the nuts to what FW was designed to be, and that's what has a lot of the people running FW sites in PVP ships frustrated.

While I'm not convinced that eliminating WCS all together is the best option, I fully believe that another balance pass on them is due. The use of WCS has evolved greatly since the last balance pass, and it's worth looking at again to see if the present fitting reqs, and penalties are where they should be. And should the use of WCS interfere with the use of a non-T2 cloaking device?

While we're looking at that, I think we might also need to look at the tanking capabilities of the single NPC inside a FW plex. They were tweaked to have beefier tanks, but I can still kill a medium plex NPC with less than 70 DPS in a pure tackle fit interceptor. Their weak damage is fine, as I don't want to see them become a major factor in a pvp engagement, but it's not hard to get a PVP fit frigate to put out 120+ dps, and a bit more difficult to do so in one fit to the brim with cloak and stabs piloted by a low-sp alt.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

WE FORM V0LTA
#56 - 2014-03-03 00:51:06 UTC
How do you feel about PVE, mining and industry in highsec, lowsec, nullsec and w-space from a "fun/h" perspective? How would you improve the "fun/h"?

Quote:
There is a good reason no one mines and very few people run missions in lowsec. Far too much risk for far too little reward.


I've for a long time thought Eve should also be more dynamic.
No one is accepting your missions? You'd probably increase the reward until people do. No one touching an asteroid belt? It would probably slowly grow bigger until someone found and mined it.
Imagine this: Amamake has been untouched for months and the asteroids belts are huge with a high mineral concentration. A scout with a survey scanner estimated the ISK/h to be 400m/h, so his mining corporation hire a mercenary group for protection and make a huge mining op. You now have mining ships trying to mine as much as possible while pirates try to kill them and mercenaries try to keep them alive.
Monkeys with Guns.
#57 - 2014-03-03 23:44:38 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
How do you feel about PVE, mining and industry in highsec, lowsec, nullsec and w-space from a "fun/h" perspective? How would you improve the "fun/h"?

Quote:
There is a good reason no one mines and very few people run missions in lowsec. Far too much risk for far too little reward.


I've for a long time thought Eve should also be more dynamic.
No one is accepting your missions? You'd probably increase the reward until people do. No one touching an asteroid belt? It would probably slowly grow bigger until someone found and mined it.
Imagine this: Amamake has been untouched for months and the asteroids belts are huge with a high mineral concentration. A scout with a survey scanner estimated the ISK/h to be 400m/h, so his mining corporation hire a mercenary group for protection and make a huge mining op. You now have mining ships trying to mine as much as possible while pirates try to kill them and mercenaries try to keep them alive.


Honestly, that's one of the better ideas I've heard on the matter. Our biggest issue is that lowsec PVE is only marginally more profitable than highsec, while nullsec is quite a bit more than marginally more profitable than low. I've made the argument several times, and the stats would seem to back me up, that lowsec is far and away more dangerous than nullsec, especially in and around FW space. For people to do certain activities in an area of space, the reward has to match the risk involved. When that is skewed in favor of risk over the reward, people are just not going to do it. I think it would be a great idea to have the most PVP heavy systems where tons of stuff is destroyed to also have the richest available PVE opportunities, especially where those PVE opportunities are not used as a result of the increased risk.

How CCP would go about implementing a system like that is another matter, but yes, as a PVPer and a pirate, I WANT to see more profitable PVE available in lowsec, and I want it to be profitable enough that a PVEer would feel the need, and could afford to hire reputable mercenaries for protection. I see that as a win/win for all involved.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#58 - 2014-03-04 14:51:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Azami Nevinyrall
Mr. Funky of the Bacon

The forcing players into limited systems idea with a WCS balance in my opinion would make plex farmers a small pest instead of a problem. I'm mainly thinking of making WCS next to impossible to use on combat based ships. What those numbers are is up for debate, currently neither of us are in the CSM and have no idea what might be in the works. I also like your idea of a severe penalties for using WCS with cloaks of any kind! The risk is unbalanced with the reward.

DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
What happens if one side for example takes the whole zone, which happened as recently as January of 2013? I believe both the minmatar and amarr have been pushed to a single system since that time as well.


That's a real concern, I'll use the "Rubber band" mechanic from **** YOU KART......ERM Mario Kart.

(Keep in mind, this is something I just pulled out of my ass.)

Why not have it so FW plexes difficulty directly reflects FW. For example. Caldari is stomping Gallente, so as Gallente is loosing systems, their complexes get herder and harder. Where Caldari's plexes get easier and easier. So, if a side pushed against a wall, their small plexes have the difficulty of a large. And vice-versa, the defenders offensive plexes turn easier!

...

Monkeys with Guns.
#59 - 2014-03-05 00:58:01 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Mr. Funky of the Bacon

The forcing players into limited systems idea with a WCS balance in my opinion would make plex farmers a small pest instead of a problem. I'm mainly thinking of making WCS next to impossible to use on combat based ships. What those numbers are is up for debate, currently neither of us are in the CSM and have no idea what might be in the works. I also like your idea of a severe penalties for using WCS with cloaks of any kind! The risk is unbalanced with the reward.

DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
What happens if one side for example takes the whole zone, which happened as recently as January of 2013? I believe both the minmatar and amarr have been pushed to a single system since that time as well.


That's a real concern, I'll use the "Rubber band" mechanic from **** YOU KART......ERM Mario Kart.

(Keep in mind, this is something I just pulled out of my ass.)

Why not have it so FW plexes difficulty directly reflects FW. For example. Caldari is stomping Gallente, so as Gallente is loosing systems, their complexes get herder and harder. Where Caldari's plexes get easier and easier. So, if a side pushed against a wall, their small plexes have the difficulty of a large. And vice-versa, the defenders offensive plexes turn easier!


Define getting harder? If what you mean is NPC spawns, I'm fully against that. Plexes are for PVP, and we worked hard to get rid of the old spawning mechanic. Aside from the issue with speed tanked frigs spinning buttons while taking damage from hordes of npcs, no one in their right mind would PVP in an offensive plex on account of the npc spawns.

Plexes are mostly ok at this point, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Farmers in triple stabbed frigates with a cloaking device are a bit of an issue, and this can probably be fixed by simply beefing up the tanks of some of the npcs, and a rebalance of WCS penalties.

If you were able to see my twitch stream last night of the fight over Oicx, you would see the way that plex fighting is meant to happen, and when it does, it's pretty damn fun and exciting.Tougher npcs would be a detriment to it, especially in smaller scale fighting.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#60 - 2014-03-05 01:29:45 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Mr. Funky of the Bacon

The forcing players into limited systems idea with a WCS balance in my opinion would make plex farmers a small pest instead of a problem. I'm mainly thinking of making WCS next to impossible to use on combat based ships. What those numbers are is up for debate, currently neither of us are in the CSM and have no idea what might be in the works. I also like your idea of a severe penalties for using WCS with cloaks of any kind! The risk is unbalanced with the reward.

DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
What happens if one side for example takes the whole zone, which happened as recently as January of 2013? I believe both the minmatar and amarr have been pushed to a single system since that time as well.


That's a real concern, I'll use the "Rubber band" mechanic from **** YOU KART......ERM Mario Kart.

(Keep in mind, this is something I just pulled out of my ass.)

Why not have it so FW plexes difficulty directly reflects FW. For example. Caldari is stomping Gallente, so as Gallente is loosing systems, their complexes get herder and harder. Where Caldari's plexes get easier and easier. So, if a side pushed against a wall, their small plexes have the difficulty of a large. And vice-versa, the defenders offensive plexes turn easier!


Define getting harder? If what you mean is NPC spawns, I'm fully against that. Plexes are for PVP, and we worked hard to get rid of the old spawning mechanic. Aside from the issue with speed tanked frigs spinning buttons while taking damage from hordes of npcs, no one in their right mind would PVP in an offensive plex on account of the npc spawns.

Plexes are mostly ok at this point, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Farmers in triple stabbed frigates with a cloaking device are a bit of an issue, and this can probably be fixed by simply beefing up the tanks of some of the npcs, and a rebalance of WCS penalties.

If you were able to see my twitch stream last night of the fight over Oicx, you would see the way that plex fighting is meant to happen, and when it does, it's pretty damn fun and exciting.Tougher npcs would be a detriment to it, especially in smaller scale fighting.


I'll watch that stream when I get a chance at work tomorrow!

I was looking towards buffing NPCs as one way to deter AFK mining in FW.

So, when one side is "winning/holds more systems" the NPCs get harder. I.E. Tank capabilities and DPS output. And the "loosing/holds fewer systems" their NPCs get easier in Tank and DPS. So it's harder to take territory and easier to defend it.

I think I confused myself!

...

Forum Jump