I only left because I was sad to see stations, location, and lock outs become so trivial. I liked knowing who lived where. I liked knowing how far or how hard we needed to ride, or from what end to come from, to position for a fight. I was not a great fc, but I understood all these things and I valued and very much enjoyed fighting with those who also did. When I left there were these damn shared oversized station containers littered everywhere, within sight of each other, stacked on top of each other, and armed with the worst cap warfare imaginable.
After a few changes to npc’s, Gallente were finally able to spam missions ALMOST as easily as the other factions. Used to be just a score of dudes running them in blingy fits they sometimes lost. Things changed. Warzone control meant nothing with citadels. Everyone was just trying to stay in tier2, others 3. Fights were all around, but the spirit began to fade when it resembled the southern warzone (no offense). I hope things get better. I am voting with my feet and sub. I miss the game and gents terribly sometimes, but I got plenty RL to keep me busy.
I’d like to see bots removed when they are reported instead of there being more bots than players in factional warfare because nothing is ever done about it.
There’s no pvp It’s nothing but bots
If they can’t be bothered to do that what hope is there for a revamp.
Seems to me it is a forgotten and festering aspect of the game heading the same way as dust.
as a former FW PVPer who experienced both FW and pirate sides, here’s what I suggest:
-
cut down plex capture times and rewards by half.
-
decrease capture times further by utilizing a multiplier mechanic based on the number of pilots from the same militia. allied militia (i. e. a gallente pilot capturing for the minmatar) will have a lesser effect.
alternatively to the last 2 points:
-
consider turning capture plexes into pockets occupied by NPCs that must be killed. once all NPCs are killed the plex is captured and rewards are handed out.
-
the NPCs may vary in numbers and ship classes according to plex size. novice will have up to 6 frigates. large would have some destroyers, 2 or 3 cruisers and a battlecruiser.
-
outposts, facilities and strongholds will have varying numbers of NPCs. for example a novice outpost will have 2 or 3 frigates, novice stronghold will have 6. similar ideas for other plex sizes.
-
all plex NPCs will have much buffer tank but little gank or repping. maybe they will also have similar intelligence to common mission NPCs in regards to ewar. (randomly chosen ewar cycles appropriate for the faction)
-
plex NPCs will target pirates after a certain amount of time if a friendly militia pilot is on grid or if provoked.
-
if a FW pilot fails to kill all the hostile NPCs, reinforcements will arrive one NPC at a time until the original number of NPCs is restored. the presence of a FW pilot who is friendly to the NPC occupants will speed up this process.
-
either remove the hub from all FW LS systems or make it significantly weaker, while simultaneously decreasing the capture value of all plexes.
this is all I have for now. if I come up with any other ideas, I will post them.
I think I did pretty well summarizing your fix. I have to add, with respect to countless pvp’ers in the old forums, that they all unanimously hated the idea of having more npc’s within the FW complexes. In fact, they were reduced to one long ago for this very reason, so that they do not interfere, or minimally will (because of their low damage but high tank), with any fights that take place while there is a spawn that hasn’t been cleared. Adding npc’s is not the way to make ‘player’ v ‘player’ content better.
Imo, the only problems I see are that it takes a very long time to capture a plex. Time which could be otherwise spent doing more pvp oriented activity. I would cut a fourth of their time out, along with their payout. That time, I would say, is fair for system capture schedules and time spent by the player. If they must be reduced at all.
As for the iHub. Man, you have no idea how much of a magnet for pvp iHub bashes are. Please don’t touch them. Their recharge time on their shield could be less ****y, as it is the worst part of getting hot dropped or distracted while in the middle of a bash.
re. system indexes that affect deplex timers:
this could negatively impact siege on an enemy system, or having an enemy neighbor. The having the most uneven contestation mechanic working either too much in favor or against one side.
The idea is to make geography relevant. Yes, it does mean some systems will be easier or harder to take, since the defenders have an advantage if they choose to wield it. It also gives value to trash systems (stationless, out-of-the-way, non-pipe, etc).
re. fewer VP per system:
I don’t know what a half a day siege would be like, but it would be awful to lose a system on a holiday or while spending the day at the beach.
- Holiday sieges happen all the time, even in null and hisec
- Changing the system VP to 2000 would still require ~25-30 hours, if the system was stable and the defenders provided 0 resistance (based on 2/3 the time it took Amarr to take the last system in 2015).
- Stabilizing systems becomes easier, so systems people live in would be just as hard or even harder to push
re. security reimbursements:
I have heard complaints about the sec hits and suffered them myself. I finally stopped complaining and just tagged myself back below -5 when I had need to. This could also apply to shooting pies or suspects in highsec for an even greater return and some opportunities for RP’ers.
There’s no reason this shouldn’t be addressed. It’s also probably the easiest change CCP could implement at all. If they don’t want to touch FW code, fine; they can just add another task to the server startup process.
re. structures:
If you give FW areas a restriction to citadel anchoring, you need to understand it cannot work. Systems flip all the time and people would lose access to their own citadels.
You did read what I posted, right? There have always been POSes in FW space, that’s not new. What is new is that players can replace entire stations via citadels, which are superior in every aspect to a POS. My recommendation is that citadels get updated as follows:
- Structures only receive i-hub benefits if they are militia-aligned
- Freeports are not dockable by the opposing faction
- Militia-aligned structures in hostile systems are more vulnerable than any other structures in lowsec
- Militia-aligned structures cannot allow non-militiamen to dock, even if they own the system
Long ago I suggested that the citadel itself should be deployable as a special FW specific structure where found within the warzone; the citadel should deploy over the iHub and, in effect, become the iHub structure and becomes vulnerable by the same means, when the system reaches 100%
The primary issue with replacing i-hubs with player structures is that players do not impose any ownership over Empire holdings. This is a deliberate design element that works well in FW. Otherwise, in the best scenario, it becomes pseudo-sov, which I’m against. In the worst scenario, system hubs become squatter territory, possibly even owned by alts of hostiles.
I do want FW-specific structures. I don’t feel that replacing empire functionality would be the best route.
first of all, my ideas come with the hope to eliminate the warpstabd pests in fw so to encourage pvp encounters.
and secondly, ihubs are hardly pvp magnets when the fleet bashing is all stealth bombers that cloak up and bugger off as soon as anything that remotely signals the arrival of hostile forces shows up. I know how things work in fw. everything has a way around ut and it’s way too easy given the current system.
I don’t suppose you have a better way to discourage warpstabs? because the way I see it, those things are the main problem.
The last one falls on its face when you understand that nearly all JF pilots are neutral alts. You take away the greatest advantage of a citadel and having it well stocked.
You would have to imagine that a fw structure would at least require that the party anchoring it should be IN faction warfare as a prerequisite. Anyone willing to waste the resources to anchor a citadel that is poorly defended and crewed should be welcome to make that mistake. There is no other way to apply the benefits of system upgrades that benefit those respective citadels and corporations quite like this. It makes things simpler and easier, while at the same time applying the same target restrictions against third party intervention when the hybrid ihub citadel becomes vulnerable, keeping this special content within fw entities. Does that have no appeal?
They’re a big problem, but not the biggest. Instalocking ships are very effective against stabbed frigates. Chasing them out is not difficult either. The module itself does not have the right penalties, imo. What do the targeting systems have to do with the warp core generator? It should decrease capacitor as well as increase warp cap requirements. It should be brutal on a small ship to have the ability to shield the warp generators. ::edit:: Instalocking ships with high alpha. Thrashers on the out gates or where you guess they might run to. Gets them most of the time if you’re ready and have decent ping.
I have four JF pilots: my main (this character), and three alts. I do logistics for myself currently, and, a year ago, for a fairly large alliance. Requiring either a station or a second, unaligned citadel for neutral logistics wouldn’t kill the game for anybody. On the contrary, hostile-territory structures would only be stockable by militiamen, and that’s perfectly fine. It’d lead to some interesting challenges, which is not a bad thing.
Spoiler
I also feel hostile-territory FW structures should drop full loot, like in wormholes, but I don’t see that happening, unfortunately.
You would have to imagine that a fw structure would at least require that the party anchoring it should be IN faction warfare as a prerequisite.
It’s naive to assume anyone with citadel-anchoring capabilities wouldn’t be capable of rolling a fw alt. Especially given that alpha clones exist and that citadels are handled at a corp level, it would be a trivial matter.
Anyone willing to waste the resources to anchor a citadel that is poorly defended and crewed should be welcome to make that mistake.
It’s not always a mistake to deny strategic assets to your enemies. Also, as per your own suggestion, the system would have to be vulnerable to begin with, and it’d only be vulnerable to your own side. That is significant.
There is no other way…
yes there is
…to apply the benefits of system upgrades that benefit those respective citadels and corporations quite like this. It makes things simpler and easier, while at the same time applying the same target restrictions against third party intervention when the hybrid ihub citadel becomes vulnerable, keeping this special content within fw entities. Does that have no appeal?
You’re suggesting that one and only one player corporation gets benefits for owning a certain structure in a system. It’d be locked out from neutral interference, and “allies” cannot attack it, because it’s on the same militia and the system has to be vulnerable to begin with. Nobody except who’s on the ‘allowed’ list can dock, much less manage modules or implement changes to the structure. On the contrary, other people who might make legitimate use out of it are now locked out, with no counterplay except to lose the system, re-capture the system, and try to win the anchor race again. That does, in fact, have no appeal.
Also, we don’t need player-structure “target restrictions against third party intervention”…
Plex timers shouldn’t even count down if the pilot has stabs. I would go so far as to say you should be drummed out of the militia if you so much as warp to a plex with a stab fitted. Sure there are ways to combat stabbed farmers, but there are very few who would find it fun. They only serve to devalue the rewards earned by those who actually provide meaningful content.
I’m more in favor of making WCS penalize inertia. if you guarantee warpout, the least you can do is let another shot hit.
No. Now you are just being masochistic. No one in Gallente fw is going to make a Jita run for their Corp with a JF. That is ridiculous and I’m afraid you are being unrealistic to not see that as a massive disadvantage.
Part of the counterplay would involve putting limitations to how many citadels can be used and their skill requirements to anchor. They are too good, their ease access too high. I see these as problems, others as benefits. You would probably be of those who lean towards the latter opinion. We are not going to agree on some points.
Hmmm interesting question. I think faction warfare is one of the best places you can get ‘fair’ 1vs1 fights. This is what I come up with with a small brainstorm.
- FW could be made more intense by only spawning contestation sites in FW systems on the borders of the empires. It would result in more conflict over a smaller area.
- Recently conquered systems could (temporarily) be appointed as special systems. Maybe spawn special ores/combat sites. Would be cool if you can salvage/mine/explore special scannable sites. Example: ‘Obliterated amarr station’, you would be able to mine/salvage the station for valuable resources. They could also spawn amarr ‘rebel’ combat sites, pve-ers could scan down and complete for valuable (amarr) faction loot/blueprint drop.
- Maybe the complexes should be completely removed. Instead you would be able to change the contestation by doing FW missions in ‘border systems’ where you have to destroy a structure and rats (which will take a certain amount of minimal time). The defenders could complete the site by warping some ships in the pocket and repairing the structure to full shield/hp to a certain percentage. Defenders should not be attacked by the rats, but enemies and pirates should.
complexes have, without a doubt, been one of the leading sources of pvp content and countless 1v1 opportunities. PvE is not the answer, my friend. PvE has and will always call for maximum efficiency fits that are incongruent with pvp meta.
p.s. There is nothing wrong with complexes or their role. The problem is getting pilots into them. Even though they offer militia pilots the opportunity to fish for a fight, while also serving as a back alley of sorts, a limiter for what an opponent can bring against you, and rewards you even if you don’t get pvp content, it still takes much too long to complete a site or take a system. Two full days of constant pressure is quite a bit for some folks now that a citadel can give someone a perch to squander that investment of manpower.
It’s not worth it. The reward is not what it used to be (no lock outs, no pushing them out into high sec), no recognition (no more legit medals), no penalties.
Losing has lost its sting, victory its laurels.
For the most part FW isn’t broken…its the players who think it’s just a PVP arena…it’s warfare and should be treated as such so solution number 1, players need to stop being whiney little girls.
The point, Blackdog, is that FW could be better. It could bring back things that were proven to work, like system lock-outs. Some balance changes that encourage investment rather than the opposite. Medals were great, were you ever around to see how much they inspired the militia to push on for one? I’m asking for changes that make things more difficult, not easier. So I contest the accuracy of being defined as a whiner. Things have indeed changed. The river has been stopped near the source and the valleys run dry. Dig in the ground for your optimism, but don’t pretend the player fallout has not been woefully high, morale depressingly low.
A lot of great suggestions in here.
While I’m new to FW, I had a few ideas.
-
The LP is split between pilots in a plex (correct me if I’m wrong). This encourages solo PVP, which is fine. But it discourages fleet plexing. I want to plex in a fleet; first, it would prevent neutral solo pvpers from entering plexes if they see 6 Kessies sitting in a Novice Plex. Second, newbros would actually get together and maybe we would see a new generation of fleet-minded and faction-minded pilots in it for the pride.
The neutrals entering plexes doesn’t bother me; I signed up to learn to fight. But it sucks to be engaged in a 1v1 that ends up being a trap, which is how I lost my Hawk earlier today (still got the km, so that was cool, but I lost my hawk which sucks). It would be nice if there was encouragement for other plexers to stay when they enter the plex I’m in; all too often a ship enters, sees me and warps off. Also, there’s incentive to steal plex LP the way the system is now. Again, doesn’t bother me, but it’s one more thing that drives people away. Reduce the LP given, but give the same amount of LP to each pilot in the plex, whether there’s 1 pilot or 10 pilots. -
The other thing is, I hate giving up the first shot to someone who’s obviously coming in to the plex to take me out. With a 5.0 sec status, I’ve decided, at least for now, not to worry about it; if they’re there, they’re going to hit me so I should just suck it up and hit first. But that sure would suck to be negative, simply because I shot first at someone who was definitely going to attack me.
-
If someone is in my Militia, but they have a suspect timer, they show up as yellow on my overview, and they have a flashing suspect timer in local; I have to click “Show Info” to find out if they’re in my Militia, and that could be the difference between losing my ship and not losing my ship. Maybe this overview setting can be changed, but it’s not immediately obvious to me; perhaps if so, set the default to “Show my Militia” over “Show Suspect Timer status.” Otherwise, change the overview so that someone in my Militia shows up to me as Purple and not suspect.
This wouldn’t work well. It would only encourage farmers to fill as many alts as possible within each and every plex. You would see more stabs, and they will be found in droves. ::shutters:: But, yes, the shared system does encourage you to fly with fewer pilots, and that’s a good thing. We want this. Small gang is wonderful content. ps. Keep an eye on local and take fights you have a good chance at winning and finishing before back-up arrives. Always assume this is not a fair fight and play evasively until you can determine what the odds are. Or fly dangerously. However you do it, aim to fly well. A loss mail can be as much a good reminder as it can be a bad one.
Yes. You should.
Luckily, there are clone soldier tags found inside lowsec too. Make some money or just bump it back down to prevent it from going too low. If for nothing than to even things out around stations and gates. Either way, say goodbye to positive sec status.
Un**** your overview.
Takes me less than a minute to change default overview to my FW settings and that works fine
In all honesty, I’ve never considered looking at my overview settings. I just did after I read your post, and I un****ed my overview. Thank you!
I see your point. I considered it when I said that they would have to lower the amount of LP given out for plexing, but I guess the problem is finding that sweet spot where it’s not worth it for farmers while it is worth it for everyone else… that sweet spot probably doesn’t exist now that you mention it.