Factional Warfare Feedback Thread

Feature Previews & Feedback Factional Warfare
43

So, I just got to finish this vid with @CCP_Hellmar (interesting vid btw, everyone should watch it) :

But I have to say I am a bit perplexed by the part on FW, it seems to me that the FW update did more to cater to higher organisations and bigger logistics, than help small-scale groups and corps, (a good example is the emphasis on BFs). Did something get lost in translation? I think the vision he has of FW fits the previous iteration of FW more than the current one…

If the goal is really to have at least one space where you don’t have to have giant logistics and IT departments, and where you can get to the fun part at a faster scale, a lot of things have to be fixed.

First off, you have to do something about that new classification of sites, it’s not working.

The XXX-1 plexes should be just removed and all be replaced by XXX-5 or XXX-10 plexes, that’s the kind of people you want flying around, people who are either in a small-gang, just because they met in space or through militia, or who are looking for more people (either to shoot or group with).

The “5” - “10” part of “XXX-5” or “XXX-10” should matter, as in giving a soft ceiling to people encouraging them to not N+1 the place or encouraging a more tight-knit, smaller kind of group. If the group bringing 10 people gains A LOT more than the group bringing 100 from plexing, then suddenly you have a balancing factor against N+1, blobs, and giant organisations.

Make more gated content in FW and protect FW from gate camps or ganks at FW gates. No point in trying to form a small, downshipped group if you are just going to be wiped out by the next gate camp or if people will just stay at the plexe gate to gank you, there are examples of that captured on stream, and they make the FW game redundant.

Finally, T2 is needed for a small-group to matter, force dividers like ECM in particular. The only danger with it is having T2 at the higher sizes as they make it harder for harder groups to compete, but at lower sizes there are no reasons to exclude T2. The only level that should be protected is the “Novice/Scout” level.

If the goal is really to make FW one of the places in EVE where smaller groups can matter, I have to say I see nothing right now that’s achieving that. What the update did is create reasons to grind out systems at a higher level of organization, but it did very little to encourage small groups and Commitment (we still have the problem of unfitted ships and people warping away to continue plexing).

1 Like
44

So do you want small groups or not? Smaller sites are how you gain smaller gangs. If you introduce higher reward caps in the form of XXX-10 sites, that will just encourage those 100 pilot blobs more, then they will be wanting XXX-15, 20, 50, etc. There are more of them, they are going to want their rewards. Battlefields are already at those numbers. If you want to run 10 man gangs in FW, you already can. I did it just last night, splitting up as needed for system coverage and to maximize player rewards. If you want to fly with your 2 best friends, have each of you grab a XXX-1 site, and when you get someone who wants to pick a fight, support each other and head back after the fight.

As far as your arguments for T2…you know that you can have ewar on T1 and Navy hulls right? We even have navy ewar frigates. Those ships saw no use before they NVY/ADV divide, now they are more popular, I don’t think it’s in the game’s best interest to shut those ships in the closet again.

1 Like
46

I did say XXX-5 or XXX-10, in a game like EVE 10 is reasonably small-scale.

Personally I would be of the opinion that the 5-10 should be a limit number, as only 5 or 10 people get rewarded, and the rest get nothing. This way the 100 blob might win the plex, but they lose the “economical/farming” war.

I can assure you I do not want 15-20-50 versions, I think BFs are fine for those who want big scale fights, but I am not one of those people.

As for T2, the point of T1 is affordability and insurance, while T2 is about specialized power.
If you are a small group, you need the extra power T2 provides against a bigger threat, counts double when it comes to force multipliers and dividers.

T1 will always see uses because it is a reasonable choice for the bigger blob. I very much doubt they will be shut down when they are cheap and easy to get, fit, and throw in the grinder. For example, we had some T2 allowed in Smalls and Mediums, and you still had plenty of T1 and NVY used there (especially in the Small).
Are you really telling me that people never used Griffins before the NVY/ADV divide?
That and sorry to say but the NVY Ewar ships are atrocious, they are more like solo ships than actual EWAR platforms (imagine asking an EWAR ship to get close…). I don’t think the NVY/ADV divide helped them at all…

EDIT: Misinterpreted one of your points in the last post, rewrote it here.

47

That is not a balancing factor against N+1. It baffles me how you could think that would be the case. A bigger organization can just use their numbers and organisation talent to create small subsets in their fleets. The small subsets sit in the complexes and farm the points, while the big defender fleet ready to warp to any plex that is being attacked by other people. This is not going to inhibit N+1, it makes it even more lucrative because you can shutdown an entire system for a profitable farming evening.

1 Like
48

Agree that BF caters to the few alliances with those capabilities. Which is why I suggested the following;

The first should allow for smaller corps to participate. The second is to help improve variety and allow for newbies to graduate to more established stuff without leaving the FW ecosystem and go off into boring null.

Since the current one is named BF NVY, I presume they will come out with Advanced BFs this year and need to evaluate how the Navy version is doing. I am proposing Advanced Battlefields that are capped to 10 pilots because it will cater to corps who can field advanced doctrines at a small scale while allowing for the small gang environment that is conducive to FW.

49

Only issue I’m seeing is that advantage points are easier to gain than lose. There’s an a-symmetry there, and frontline systems seems to often have both factions at, or near, max advantage points. Cancelling eachother out.

I think a part of the problem is that those supply depots and caches can only be destroyed, but they can’t be “de-plexed”. This creates an a-symmetry where advantage points are going up on both sides. Maybe we need more people running the data sites and creating listening outposts, but IDK. I think there needs to be a way to defensively run down the supply depots/caches.

50

o/

I’d like to add feedback regarding the recent changes in Uprising.

All in all, I think it’s a step in the right direction. I would however like to recommend a few changes.

Plexes (Compounds, Outposts, etc)

  • The spawn rate and total amount of these should be reverted closely to the old system. There should be 1 Novice, 1 Small, 1 Medium, 1 Large, and 1 Open on a rotating spawn rate (with the added wandering sites that used to exist). In addition, these should be a 50/50 chance of being Navy or Advanced (as applicable).
    • Now some may argue that this change would result in too slow of a system flip, I agree and I’ll address that below. The main reason for this change is to encourage content and PvP fights, which is what everyone is looking for in faction warfare. When there are 15 sites spawned, its incredibly difficult to do that with a 15 man fleet (also defeats the intent).
    • I’ll also add that based on the current infrastructure, the usage of advanced doctrines (T2/pirate) has exited almost entirely in FW. Likewise, infrastructure has exploded in use. I think we want the opposite intended effect for the good of FW, and that requires us to bring back system-control variance.

Advantage System

  • The advantage system needs a 2-3x multiplier increase on how it affects Victory Points. This will lead to the previous change being more effective in the long run on sustainability, as well as more content and fights. Likewise, it’ll bring more value to the advantage system. This change can be implemented regardless of the previous change – though a lower cap on maximum generated site spawns would be nice.

By increasing the multiplier effect of advantage increase, we see the following changes:

  • More Fleet fights will occur on Propaganda Structures and Listening Outposts, and their usage will increase.
  • Capsuleers will see a mechanism to assist individually for a larger agenda (rather than running a site that gives < 0.1% system contested change).
  • Battlefields will increase in demand, forcing larger 30v30 fights as intended because of the sheer affect they’ll have on advantage and the consequences of losing that advantage gain.
  • The advantage system will actually be used jointly with plexing, which seems to be the intent. It’ll be a key and integral component to flipping a system effectively.

Last but not least

I recommend adding a reward mechanism or objective-based accomplishment for conquering more of the warzone. This can be RP-based, or include something like warzone-LP trades. It should not devaluate or inflate the LP market for the faction as it did in the past. There are numerous methods available here to bring a goal-based objective to the militias to work towards to in the daily grind.

  • Adding a mechanism that removes opponent objective advantage for Battlefields may make good use of this too. Or even a synergetic relationship between plexing and advantage, where advantage is a depleting asset of much higher value that goes away with XX amount of sites completed at a specific rate on each side of the war, per system. Dropping at a percentage or static rate per plex completed —

o7
Nyx

51

More faction standing for dplexers.

52

So whilst i agree and disagree with some tings said above i feel no need to voice them; however…

Currently plex mechanics are basically the same, IE no real incentive for an actual pvper to sit in one for 15 minutes doing nothing… certainly not for hours on end… which is what it takes to even dent the contested state. This leaves it open for an odd situation, that is of course that those who wish to farm and rp simply run away at all fights and go back to site after… or ship down and run a site antagonist cannot fit into.
Whilst these are all viable tactics they do not feel very warlike; whilst feints and tactical withdraws are indeed parts of war so is the attack, ambush and assault. Currently I feel that the facwar system does not really reward activity and pvp as much as it should… im rambling…

Tl:dr
militia doesnt need to pvp to take systems. seems inherently wrong?
missions plz?.. not standardised bs; think patrol (several waypoints), ambush, hold (gates, belts, plex in system ‘x’), assassinate/save/repair… anything that puts a player in space at peril of others without too much dscanning (or beacons…) and that could also effect contested status… bonus content with some clever thinking could see corp/alliance ‘‘npc’’ agent in HQ that gives evermarks or w/e… an amusing way to target specific capture points.

We’ve had some fun, frontline is a very good idea but would love more tweaks… it still leaves newer players brutally open to vets rather than each other and still rewards non committal action to take systems.

Afterthought;
No lowsec system seems particularly more useful to have than any other, even choke points are pretty useless in eve in lowsec (for the most part)
Are there any plans to rectify that? will certain systems offer something eventually that others do not? other than PI and mining…

53

Red does not seem amused.

54

I was in Hikkoken earlier and noticed that both Calmil and Galmil plexes were in the system at the same time. Is this a glitch or a new mechanic?

55

Some pain points from someone spending a looooot of time leading Minmatar pilots.

Advantage

Advantage Outposts
Currently, Propaganda outposts and Listening outposts are limited to one person payouts. This limits them to veterans running them in hyper-optimized fittings, when they would be a great activity for small groups of destroyers.

They should honestly pay out similar to a small NVY-5 complex, this would give smaller corporations a way to impact the war effort in a meaningful way- and get newer players involved in these critical structures.

Decoders
There’s not enough. Advantage is far too easy to gain, and despite buying decoders from the entire warzone it’s barely enough to scratch the surface. These should be more accessible.

More ways to decrease advantage
Most frontlines are stuck at equal advantage. It’s not because people aren’t playing the advantage game- there’s just not many ways to reduce it. One to be exact.

Logistics

Kickout Stations
Faction warfare burns through a SIGNIFICANT amount of ships, when done properly. For most faction warfare groups, it makes sense to stage out of stations. Currently, in many systems in Minmatar / Amarr warzone, the stations are kickout- making them extremely unsuitable for large scale logistics.

There’s really no reason for this except legacy elements.

Militia Contracts
Public contracts are the only way to create contracts for the warzone- it would be nice to create militia-wide contracts that are easily viewable. This won’t stop griefing/etc but it’s a common pain point.

2 Likes
56

If they are spread out and move around guess what gets more easy to do?

That’s right, blob them. Divide and Conquer. Never heard of that little quote?

But I’d guess it’s too hard to use your brain when you are more focused on getting a got’cha moment. Ideally we’d want a system that doesn’t turn us into Null, and you can only do that if you introduce some diminishing returns to numbers, I proposed one through Income, what’s yours?

Look, even if my solution is not perfect, you can’t tell me that the current situation is better with gazillions sizes and coupled to most plexes actively wasting the time of anyone not flying solo.

57

You are trying to solve the problem of Commitment in plexes, to be fair this is not a problem that’s unique to FW, in most of the areas of the game it is better to flee and avoid confrontation than stay and fight.

Only way you avoid that is to have the contesting party put something on the line. Propaganda Structures do ask people to stay and fight or lose something. Hopefully we get more stuff like that.

Aurora interacted in some thread that was discussing the idea of systems that would be like some sort of backline factory points. Same way you have factories in the back in a real war, making the bullets and boots for the war on the Frontline. Hopefully this becomes a reality, Large-scale Industry being somewhat lacking in the FW system despite being the one thing that’s unique to EVE.

I did advocate for Bonus systems that would provide a Local (1-5 LYs) bonus to a faction (boost to Shield or Armor for example). And those systems being randomly changed each month. Again, hopefully it becomes reality.

58

How do you want to blob something that is protected by the blob? Remember that big defensive fleet that I mentioned that is ready to warp to any attackers on their farmers. If you accuse me of not using my brain, you sure should be careful with your glass house if you don’t read my post till the end and only pick a portion of it out of context to rant incoherently.

I am not saying that the situation is good, either. Getting rid of these plexes and requiring the installation of structures by players or aiding/preventing the construction by NPCs in systems similar to the grindfest during the first faction campaigns sounds more like a feasible way to curb N+1 somewhat.

59
  • Suggest reducing LP payout for non-faction (e.g galmil gets 10% or 0% of minmil lp payout). Too much out-of-warzone plexing impacting the shape of warzones. It’s snowballing, and will likely have a long-term negative impact on FW participation. In this theme, there is too much outside influence on the shape of the warzone.
1 Like
60

Yeah, it’s not like people haven’t figured out that you should attack the divided parts of a stronger force fast and with speed, nah, instead you should just stay there and wait for the response fleet to scram you.

Hit and Run. Not that hard to figure out.

That makes absolutely zero sense, and at this point I’m pretty sure you are just here to argue so I won’t bother with you anymore.

Imagine saying Structures are the solution to N+1, at least you are not so far gone that you actually believe those words yourself, otherwise you wouldn’t have put that ‘somewhat’.

Anyway, there are plenty of spaces you can go and transform into Null-sec, go there and shoo.

61

I found seven decoders last night. I went through six different sites.

62

Yes, because attacking a small subset of the bigger fleet fast is going to work against the N+1 being right on your heels as soon as the plexing group told them you are on the acceleration gate. You don’t seem to have figured out N+1 yet. I suggest you go to null sec and learn about it before you think your ideas will alleviate the problem in any way, shape or form. Your impression that site pilot limits would alleviate N+1 is best described as naive, as my example with farm fleet squads and protection fleet wing(s), or even the original poster’s example of splitting up and helping each other in case of attacks shows.

How overrun by N+1 were the faction campaigns? As far as I know, there was not a big impact on the continuous progress from them, in part because it was a constellation rather than system effort. Static plexes like these will never fix N+1. What will help to curb it are randomization and less predictability. That is where these structures, like the propaganda structures, come into play as ONE part of the entire progress.
It should not be as easily predictable as it is today what you need to do to help with the capturing or securing of a system. It should be one day the attack or defense on certain infrastructure, the next day assistance or sabotage on another project, the next day the focus of combat efforts in a certain system or constellation because there had been increased efforts from the hostile faction the day before. There should be a huge host of different activities contributing to the system capture or securing progress other than just sitting around in combat ships. Hauling, mining, research, exploration (to find covert listening sites, for instance), even fighting off some NPC fleets and so on should be part of the FW experience. Not just dull plain ship combat. If you only focus on plain ship to ship combat for the capture/securing process, neither you nor CCP will ever fix N+1. And neither you nor CCP will ever make it a fascinating experience to make other parties get involved.

63

Greetings

I hope to provide some feedback on the geographical interactions experienced in this latest iteration of Factional Warfare (FW). In particular, my concern is the lack of depth inherent in our interactions with the geography of FW regions.

Currently, it appears as though FW is a game of surface area. A game in which a Faction must apply its Plexing forces as efficiently as possible across as many systems as possible and must do so better than the opponent. It’s a very simple dynamic and I think it could contribute to a far more interesting experience, in terms of how we interact with FW geography, if there were some additional factors involved.

Ultimately the point I want to get across is the simplicity, or one-dimensional nature, of our interactions with Factional Warfare’s geography. So, I will hazard to go further and provide some examples of what I have in mind when I speak of “additional factors.”

( 1 ) Already present is a system in which the Advantage points of a solar system are affected by the number of adjacent allied solar systems. This, in concept, is excellent. However, I don’t believe it goes far enough. Implementing a rule that prevents all systems not indirectly, or directly, connected to a High Security system belonging to the controlling Faction from accumulating Advantage points and/or prevents relevant players from docking would potentially encourage a more targeted effort in context of taking solar systems seen as strategically valuable.

( 2 ) Related to ( 1): As Eve’s geographical layout is generally static, some exceptions being the Triglavian annexation of systems and recent addition of stargates, I think a FW-centric bridge system would complement the rule mentioned in ( 1 ). I would think that these FW bridges (effectively FW-exclusive stargates) would be limited in number on a Faction level, encouraging strategic placement and inter-faction cooperation.

I hope these examples aid in my presentation of the idea I am trying to convey. The point isn’t necessarily to say that I think these should be implemented, but that the dynamic surrounding how we interact with Factional Warfare solar systems could be far more interesting and rewarding.

Thanks for reading.

o/

3 Likes