Fixing Faction Warfare

[Franz_Jacob]

Here’s my take on the fix, inspired from what somebody said in general forums.

The main problem with FW is that is too much of a profitable activity, and heavily bottable.

Remove the profit, remove the bots, and make it more about manual territory warfare again.

So, in order to do that :

1. Remove profitable LP generation from plexes. (“profitable LP”, as tied to LP store)

2. Reduce by 3/4 the ammount of profitbale LP gains from Lvl4 missions. and stop the Tier-dependent LP gains.

3. Create a special kind of fw LP that is non-profit, and only used as player-donation to upgrade systems with.

4. Tiers and Upgraded systems should give specific pvp/pve/industry/mining perks just like special WH types do, that way it’s a lot more dynamic and would enable more focused and strategical warfare on key systems.

Problem fixed and FW is once again about fun pvp and manual CTF system control.

Thanks, Im here all day

[Wanda_Fayne]

Make it profitable to fight
Make it a little more profitable to win the fight

[Franz_Jacob]

Anything involving profitable payouts from killing other ships can and will be abused in this alt-friendly universe.

So nope.

It’s the profitable LP system that needs to go.

The fighting itself is only a means to a patient end, and that is, the capture and upgrade of systems, which would potentially yield isk-making opportunities.

[Wanda_Fayne]

ok, I’ll take the discussion here.

How can someone fund their FW by doing FW if there is no profit from it?
You can’t expect the PvP pilot to dock his/her ship and take up mining to make a buck…?

[Franz_Jacob]

True that it might fundamentally change the current nature of Faction warfare players who’d simply want easy isk for their pew. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing that flock go and give way to a new one.

People would be required to be self-sufficient by their own means, just like anyone else does in the game. Plenty, so plenty of ways to make quick isk in this game …

Also, the potential long term FW conquest and system upgrades could yield some better isk-making perks and opportunities on the long run, so people would have that to look forward to and fight for.

[Wanda_Fayne]

@Franz_Jacob

players who’d simply want easy isk for their pew

So no casuals allowed in FW? I would have thought that people in FW want fights first and foremost. Sure “campaign mode” for the more dedicated but why draw such a hard stance on new players and people who just want a little PvP action without breaking their wallets.

Do you want to sit on captured systems and just generate revenue from it, gain all the ‘perks’?
That sounds borked.

I am taking the opposing argument because it needs to be…

[Franz_Jacob]

@Wanda_Fayne

So no casuals allowed in FW? I would have thought that people in FW want fights first and foremost. Sure “campaign mode” for the more dedicated but why draw such a hard stance on new players and people who just want a little PvP action without breaking their wallets.

Do you want to sit on captured systems and just generate revenue from it, gain all the ‘perks’?
That sounds borked.

I am taking the opposing argument because it needs to be…

I can make 60 mil in less than an hour doing casual exploration sites.

A t1 frig costs me 15 mil, that’s 4 ships I can take roaming with friends for an hour or even more.

How is Eve not casual-friendly enough yet ?

[Wanda_Fayne]

But that’s not doing FW. Why does the FW model have to be like ‘nullsec empires’ in order to sustain itself?

A soldier should get paid for simply being a soldier.
And paid a little better for being better.

[Franz_Jacob]

This is Eve soldiering, not RL soldiering.

I already said a profit per kill system would not work simply because of the alt abuse.

You do FW, you sustain the activity by any concrete means available to you.

A soldier gets his Ship Reimbursment from his corp, access to hangars and discount contracts.

So yes, in a way somewhat like nullsec, but next door to highsec, and the first accessible steps to learning to pvp.

[Wanda_Fayne]

Explain please how a %10 ship-value-bounty payout can be abused if participants are limited to FW only.

[Franz_Jacob]

Ship-value-bounty :

I put 2 alts in amarr fw, both in Battleships, insure them, and have them sit by a safespot.

I get my minmatar fw main and another alt or corpie, fleet the 2 amarr battleships, warp to safespot and blap them.

Profit. Rinse repeat.

[Wanda_Fayne]

Where did you get the ships to begin with?

Assume you bought them.
You just lost 90% of your isk.

Assume you made them.
You just lost 90% (more or less) of what you could sell them for.

[Wanda_Fayne]

The bounty is a pool.
Insurance pays 90%?
You get at best %10 more than if you just shot them anyway.

[Franz_Jacob]

@Wanda_Fayne

Where did you get the ships to begin with?

Assume you bought them.
You just lost 90% of your isk.

Assume you made them.
You just lost 90% (more or less) of what you could sell them for.

Given market ship-price fluctuations, a static 10% system can be gamed easily if you pay attention.

Not mention the Battleship insurance payouts.

Do you expect CCP to adjust the payout percentage according to markets ?

[Wanda_Fayne]

@Franz_Jacob

Given market ship-price fluctuations, a static 10% system can be gamed easily if you pay attention.

Not mention the Battleship insurance payouts.

Then simply take the %10 out of the insurance. Give a %10 reduced insurance for FW payouts.
Then it is no more gain that what we have now.

[Wanda_Fayne]

I am adding incentive to fight

[Franz_Jacob]

Incentive should be the fight itself, not the payout. It’s just a different mindset.

For ship-bounty payout, you already have one, it’s called loot.

[Wanda_Fayne]

Don’t move the goalpost!

Your argument is that it can be abused.

I challenge that…

[Franz_Jacob]

It can because no ship-price is static, whereas your percentages are.

Margins appear

[Wanda_Fayne]

But it is never more than you could abuse currently with insurance.
So it’s not gaming the system.