This won’t do. You can create a spy alt and throw him into a plex with the enemy and effectively reduce their efficiency.
The stabbed farmer problem is a direct result of having a horribly lame game mechanic like defensive plexing, which requires less attention and effort than mining.
System contestation should fall 4% every day automatically or there should be a way to reduce contested levels some other way that isn’t as lame as bringing your home system to stable when it is less than 15%. A selfless task no one wants to do, so they create dplex alts for it. I’ve mentioned many times that the difference in LP which is lost in the calculation should go directly to the ihub, to offset bleed from Oplexing.
Also, a 4way war would be a **** show, as galmil presence would be overwhelming in the southern wz. You have no idea how many dudes are dying for something new like that. If medals were still a thing, it would be 100% likelihood of migration and curbstopming.
I think risk averse shenaniganry like warp stab fit insta-warp afk buttan spinners are dumb. I don’t recall anybody on the CSM who has said “Yeah I think all these people afk in plexes with warp core stabs are a good thing”.
The question is what needs to be fixed in any given scenario. The question is how do you make the case to CCP that they should focus on such a fix. How would you inspire the motivation or impetus needed for these changes to take form?
2 Likes
You convince them on the basis that non-combat fits within a warzone are going hard against that grain and general idea of factional warfare that has a direct, negative, impact on new players who sit on the edge of the knife between being a farmer and learning how to pew. Dplexing has to get reinvented or go. Same with missions, but that is a more delicate issue, imo, since there is no longer any end game objective in FW with medals gone or when things are slow.
Most people agree on the existence of the problem.
Most people agree on a number of ways to potentially fix the problem.
The issue with CSM stuff is how do you communicate the importance of something like that when there is a several year long backlog of stuff that plenty of people think is just as important. You need to treat this like a research paper in uni, gather data and present an argument. Even if that data is just survey monkey sent to a few hundred eve players, that is still way more meaningful than telling CCP something is broken.
The CSM isn’t about a platform of things YOU as an individual want to see fixed or addressed. Your feelings and desires are secondary to those of your constituency.
3 Likes
The CSM isn’t about a platform of things YOU as an individual want to see fixed or addressed
I can’t agree more, which is why I’m stepping back from the WCS argument. I understand that individuals are passionate about this subject, but that it’s a vocal (and sometimes purposefully tongue-in-cheek) minority.
There are much more serious gameplay issues that affect LS/FW and although I realise that the CSM highlight and push these, it would benefit our slice of the ecosystem to have direct representation.
On the subject of shameless self-promotion, I’ve done a podcast with Rixx Javix (of piracy and creative artwork fame) which goes into some of my CSM thoughts and generally shooting the breeze about the state LS and the game etc.
Enjoy!
Hi, my question to you is: what kind of specific changes would you advocate for regarding Lowsec as a whole, not just the FW parts of it. Thanks!
Sure, a solid question given my focus above.
-
Industry - Low Sec industry isn’t the greatest sell in the world. You can do things better and cheaper in Null and HS is worth the (very small) extra outlay for the huge increase in personal security. So let’s have a little more carrot and less stick in this case. Having less legal goods (eg. boosters) for an RP reason seems to have met it’s end with CCP changes (unfortunately from my perspective) so that’s probably not a route worth investigating. Using the tax system to reward LS production and to potentially hamper incoming null built goods would be interesting and would reflect the empires protecting themselves in the same way that an economic union would in the real world (Eg. the EU import tariffs) could really help LS goods be market competitive … however as Citadels have removed tax from the equation, we’ve got a ball of knots to unravel (Citadels with zero tax are a horror show) to get to anything like this.
-
Uniquely LS events/sites. Why is LS actually LS? More flavour around the empires doing underhand things in their official grey areas would add romance and intrigue to an area of the game that people tend to see in black and white. I’m not saying don’t have events throughout eve, just have more specific content which is compelling in each part of space.
-
More (carefully considered) structures designed for particular parts of space. Although we’ve got a small amount of this, let’s use the existing tech to open possibilities for further differentiation. Eg. You want to make caps? Null it is. You want to produce large fleets of smaller ships, perhaps you’re better off with the partial support of the empires in LS.
-
Making borders mobile. The eve map is pretty static. Moving the boundaries of LS/HS and perhaps even NPC null based on player activity would be a very interesting mechanic - Perhaps also difficult to implement but one that might drive desire
-
A boost for LS mining. At the moment LS moon mining is pretty darn difficult and unrewarding. You can do it fine out in a secure null system, but there’s no equivalent ownership, protection or incentive to do it with the current mechanics (well, it looks pretty cool pulling up the chunk but that’s about it) in LS. I understand the need for moon mining to be an active activity but at the moment mining in LS is flawed from a risk/reward perspective.
Importantly there should never be a game mechanic stick introduced to encourage players to or from any part of space and to another and that should be an important consideration from any changes. HS = LS = NS = WHs in terms of the right to play your way and that should always be considered in terms of making areas of space more or less attractive.
What sort of lines were you thinking along?
1 Like
I listened to one of the podcasts and I just could not get it out of my head that you really thought restricting access to a pilot once he leaves a plex, for whatever reason, from going back inside for some undefined time or complete timer rollback. It makes me think you have not been part of, or understand, what a system siege is like or how this would impact one of the greatest aspects of fw during a serious deployment.
I tell people only 3 changes could bring FW back to being taken more seriously. Can you please give feedback on these:
•restrict docking to Citadels in enemy space, just as it is with stations.
•restrict t2 and t3 hulls from entering/activating fw mission acceleration gates
•all defensive plexing LP goes directly to the corresponding ihub and system contestation is reduced 4% every day at down time.
I think your wrong on Low’s showings in the CSM considering you had gorski carr and rhiload for the last two CSMs, but besides that i give +1 on a professional looking campaign post.
I see Gorski and Rhiload as cross space PVP candidates. They both have a big video following but their focus (I’m happy to be corrected) is very much on PVP and the balance aspects of that.
Hey Oreb - the plex restriction concept started as shooting the breeze about how one could potentially hamper botting and risk averse farmers in FW and was most definitely not something I’m wedded to. I would also miss the plexing dogpile that can be a good warzone push, as well as the lightning fast re-shipping that encourages.
•restrict docking to Citadels in enemy space, just as it is with stations.
- Something I bought up at the roundtables last year. I’d like to restrict anchoring rights too. If restricting docking isn’t on the table then hugely extending vulnerability timers for the faction that doesn’t own the system could be investigated. It’s the biggest issue in FW bar none.
•restrict t2 and t3 hulls from entering/activating fw mission acceleration gates
- Not sure about this one. FW missioning is pretty risk light once you know what you’re doing and it generates a lot of isk. What’s your thinking on hampering hunters/opposed FW pilots when they’re trying to stop you running the mission ring around your particular warzone? Maybe I’m missing something? They aren’t FW Plexes so having conventional mission mechanics re: gates feels correct.
all defensive plexing LP goes directly to the corresponding ihub and system contestation is reduced 4% every day at down time.
- I’m trying to understand your motivation for this suggestion - perhaps this is a partial attempt to address WCS defensive plexers and bots? Let’s look at the LP piece first. Defensive plexing is the most accessible form of LP generating FW content, its what you point the newest players at as a method to build up their isk. Making it into a purely tactical role rather than one that is also personally rewarding would not only make the farmers disappear but would, in my opinion, end up making the barrier for FW entry even higher. I can see that to counter that you’ve suggested ticking down the contested rate in a system at downtime - Maybe that would help with the former issue I’ve identified and entosis nodes decay in a not dissimilar method so maybe there’s some validity in that.
I don’t want missions to be easier, I want to put a stop to their being spammed to hell and back. This would do it, as most hulls used to farm them ‘safely’ are cov ops and instawarp t3’s. This would rule them out and get people where they should be: in the plex warfare, creating content in pvp fit ships.
I don’t think so. As any t1 fit frigate with even meta guns can complete an offensive novice AND small facility. Defensive plexing encourages afk playing and only leads to warp core stabs and running away.
The last change of a passive 4% drop of system contestation is, if the rest of these changes were to take place, absolutely necessary-- because you would immediately make defensive plexing unattractive and there needs to be another way for it to fall without causing too much pain to home system defenders. Pain that is still present when you figure that you are already getting close to nothing for plexing a system back to stable from anything below 15%. We don’t want to make afk fw alts necessary as they are now.
I don’t want missions to be easier, I want to put a stop to their being spammed to hell and back. This would do it, as most hulls used to farm them ‘safely’ are cov ops and instawarp t3’s. This would rule them out and get people where they should be: in the plex warfare, creating content in pvp fit ships.
- Ah okay, I got the wrong end of the stick of your point here, apologies. I agree there’s an LP printing aspect to FW missioning, but that’s more to do with the content of the missions than the ships people use. All of the mission content where you simply arrive, pop one NPC from the bunch and bugger off to the next in the list needs to be changed so that the pilot actually gets exposed to risk and has to do more. Maybe also bring in some of the newer AI to the NPCs so that the pilot can’t just do them without thinking. I’m not sure just banning certain ship types would work though - I think by approaching the problem from this direction, you’ll just end up with Cynnabals (fast warping, high deeps,) and other pirate cruisers, rather than T3Ds and you’ll still have the same root issue??
Nah, the root issue with fw missions is their extremely high payouts and the ability for t3c’s, t3d’s and stealth bombers (to a certain degree now after the webbing npc addition) to complete a long circuit of them in relative safety.
Please remember that on asking for changes, we must consider the amount of work that must go into these adjustments by the dev team. You are asking for a complete rework of missions, I am not. These are simple changes that bring balance.
A Cynabal, though it might be able to quickly traverse the warzone, is not going to be able to tank many of these missions or do enough dps with a hardy tank. It will also mean many many Cynabals will die.
If you change the mission clearing requirements, or make npc’s smarter, you only increase the danger by a huge amount, as these missions are public warp points, much like the event combat sites like the guardian gala. So, if you make them harder/longer to complete, you should make them private sites that have to be combat scanned to find you in them. Without getting to deep into opposing views, I will again point to the fact that you are asking for changes that require testing and feedback. But force people to use navy and t1 ships, and you increase the danger and bring it into balance with the reward.
Lots of players talk about the cost to war dec, and a separate issue lots of players talk about is new player retention, but if war dec fees increase, perhaps a trivial amount for an established corp helmed by a vet, at what point does it become punitive and beyond the reach of new players?
Many new highsec corps are founded by new players. They recruit other new players, and they mine and mission, getting used to the game. Then something happens. Someone ganks their mining op, or invades their mission pocket, or crashes their event site. They look around checking out their options for a little payback. After all, this is EVE Online, home of payback. And lo and behold, unless they want to become criminals (usually not the preferred option for new players), they find out, it costs a minimum of 50 million isk, up to 500 million isk for payback. For payback!
How long does it take a group of new players to make 50 million isk? Long enough for a new player CEO to think twice about slapping it down on a war dec fee for payback. And the hundreds of millions it costs to war dec a large established group? Well, it can be a substantial portion of a structure. Now, if you are newbie CEO with a group of newbies do you bide your time and go for the structure? Or do you toss that isk out the door for the possibility of a week’s worth of entertainment for you and your crew?
No matter where you stand on the issue of new players forming corporations and recruiting other new players. This happens now. They are, they do. And some of the war dec fees from the perspective of a new player who starts in highsec are problematic.
All new players start in highsec. Their experience of pvp interaction starts in highsec, whether that is a gank, contesting an event site, or trade wars. Unilaterally, raising the war dec fees threatens to price new players out of even the opportunity of fighting back, or even (gasp!) creating content.
New players already struggle with the concept of “catch up” to older players. Not being able to afford the legal method of “payback” in highsec is a demoralizing realization for some new players, perhaps lots of new players.
So, I would respectfully ask you to bear this in mind, if you are elected.
To be blunt, and put this in a different perspective, a new player’s first hulls run under one million isk. So, bare minimum, a new player is weighing the option of going criminal or the opportunity to purchase at least 50 frigate hulls for the opportunity to create content via the war dec mechanic as it stands now.
And in my perspective “as it stands now” is too punitive, for new players.
2 Likes