The argument being that the system, the collection of numbers which CCP keeps massaging, attempts to groom players into a certain playstyle if they want to earn any living whatsoever within faction warfare. Basically, CCP tells the faction warfare player, if you want to earn a living, then you should care about PvE: orbiting buttons and running missions. PvP is secondary.
Some folks have pointed out to me that the entire game is made out of numbers, numbers which CCP continually massage. Yes, I knew that. And that's true. Ship rebalancing, as an example. The difference between ship rebalancing and faction warfare, though, is a micro system versus a macro system.
Whether an Enyo does 180 DPS now versus 170 DPS come Retribution isn't going to change how I play the game, it doesn't even dictate how I should play the game. If heavy missile launchers are nerfed come December, it might change what ships I prefer to fly, but it doesn't tell me that I should stop flying ships, that I should stop blowing shit up. The numbers that define the ships we fly, that's a micro system. It will cause to us to make small adjustments to our gameplay, but nothing larger, nothing radical.
Faction warfare is a macro system. If the system tells us that orbiting buttons solo will give us X loyalty points [LP]. Or that running missions will reward Y LP. And that killing people will reward Z LP. And that X or Y and very much greater than Z, then that system is telling us how we should play the game, that PvE is trumping PvP. In a system that's supposed to be creating more PvP opportunities.
The current state of the faction warfare macro system is out of whack with what the system should be encouraging: more PvP.
The one consistent bit of debate that came out of the Hans Visits Fweddit discussion is that players want to see less LP rewarded for PvE activities, and more rewarded for PvP activities. Faction warfare is, or is supposed to be, a PvP dominant game feature. To have features that tell players that PvE is more important than PvP is, well, inane.
Hans seemed to agree with this. "I agree with you completely," he said, every time someone brought up the issue of PvP-over-PvE. Of course, it's hard to tell with Hans, because he tends to agree with everybody. He's the sort of guy that wants to please everyone, which is probably what makes him a good politician. The problem, if he's agreeing with everything, you don't really get a sense of what he's actually thinking. Hell, Soundwave might tell him "I want to see more PvE in faction warfare" and Hans' response might very well be "I agree with you completely." We'll have to trust that Hans will push the PvP-over-PvE issue forcefully with CCP. Unfortunately, if CCP is unhappy with his badgering, he'll probably back off. Hans is on your side as long as it doesn't annoy anyone important.
Come next February, we'll know how well Hans did as the faction warfare representative. If faction warfare still seems broken, then a lot of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders. Eighty percent of these Retribution fixes and iterations were pushed heavily by Hans. And I doubt CCP would have went through with many of them without Hans haranguing them about it all. CCP thought faction warfare was pretty much a done deal with Inferno.
Back to the micro versus the macro. Micro features don't have a huge affect on our gameplay styles. They'll cause minor adjustments here and there, but that's about it. It's the macro systems we have to keep a careful eye on, because those drive players towards specific features and play styles. Regarding faction warfare, CCP seems to be telling the PvPer that PvE is the all-important game feature. Which is really at odds with what faction warfare is all about. Imagine if killing players increased mining yield? Forcing people into PvP would be as nonsensical a mechanic in an entirely PvE activity.
"If faction warfare still seems broken, then a lot of the blame falls squarely on his shoulders."
ReplyDeleteOr if it's still broken it's because CCP went "fuck it you guys had two patches, there are other parts of the game which involve more players that need to be addressed."
Just sayin'.
Hans has a post, pre-FW devblog, where he highlights the most important issues that need to be fixed. Nearly everyone of those issues is an issue in the devblog. His influence on Retribution has been enormous.
DeleteI have to stick up for Hans a little bit because Retribution is already promising to be a vast improvement over the post-Inferno debacle.
DeleteI'm not sure I understand the problem. If you look at the stats objectively then there is a sh*tload of PvP in FW. Like tons of it. Every single day. I have no problems finding (and dying in) fights in FW.
It seems that your issue is 'I cannot make a viable living solely from PvP in FW'. But, rightly or wrongly, PvE is an important element in the game mechanic. One of the objectives of FW is to contest sovereignty over systems. One militia fighting against the other over war zone control. FW therefore cannot be solely about PvP (just like it should not be solely about PvE). Making a living in FW should actually incorporate both.
Personally I would prefer no LP rewarded for plexing at all (and just leave the PvE rewards to FW missioning) but I can see no real reason why CCP would say - remove the sovereignty mechanic from FW it inhibits PvP. I'm not sure there is any evidence to prove that it does now the new changes have been introduced.
"But, rightly or wrongly, PvE is an important element in the game mechanic."
DeleteOnly because CCP decided it should be valuable. Pre-Inferno, there was the orbiting of buttons, but because it didn't give any rewards, people were free to ignore it or use it for e-peen/bragging rights.
As I said I don't think plexing should give rewards but I do think it has an important role. What you are advocating is that anyone in FW should be able to live solely on income sourced from PvP and be able to disregard the fact that you may have to contest systems as well.
DeleteI think that if you are able to ignore or completely remove the sovereignty mechanic from FW then the whole concept may become a little meaningless. Instead it would become RvB in low sec.
There are other methods to reward sov control in FW. Such as allowing only limited items to be bought at T1 control, and expanding the selection all the way up to T5 control. This could include items exclusive to FW, which become available at T3 and above.
DeleteThe problem with your point Perkin, is that a side at T5 can support it's income from pushing the warzone better than a side at T1 can do via PVP and pushing the warzone by a significant margin.
DeleteThe sov mechanic doesn't necessarily inhibit PVP, but participating in sov mechanics for the sake of contesting the warzone on a macro scale de-incentivizes PVP since if i'm running timers down as a primary objective, the last thing I want is someone interrupting me.
The Retribution changes will fix a lot of things, but thats because Inferno messed them up really bad.
PVE that takes place in low-sec full of war targets creates PVP opportunities. They are clearly trying to make those PVE activities less safe from PVP opportunities also.
DeleteDon't get me wrong. I agree that the primary objective of FW shouldn't be running down timers or PvE. God knows we've all had enough of that since Inferno.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is that with FW, the primary objective can't be solely PvP because of the nature of the concept of FW. As others have pointed out there is supposed to be a reason behind fighting (militia vs militia in a struggle over the warzone). And no this isn't roleplay - that is how FW is marketed and advertised.
The problem CCP have is that FW is like null-sec lite. The issue they are trying to solve is 'how do you get people to care about sovereignty and reward them for controlling the warzone without giving them the incentives that come with null sec(controlling tech moons etc). Their solution is the warzone tier system. This may be terrible but it's actually a logical one to a problem that is really tough to crack.
Apologies for the wall of text but the question is whether we can think of anything better?
Do the % LP bonus works for PvP kills also ?
ReplyDeleteAnd do you earn LP by flipping systems ?
There's a big issue on PvP and earning LP however ; if you can earn more value by blowing a ship than by what he's worth, there will be (lots of) insurance fraud, so CCP can't do much about that.
However they could do something like making PvP kills influx the bonus that capturing complex do. Like it moves the capture level, or maybe even give bonus LP inside the system iHUB, that shouldn't allow cheating while helping the faction.
Yes. I'm well aware that ship LP can't be more than the ship+insurance is worth. But at 2.25 x base LP, the reward is half decent, and that certainly is not the ceiling.
DeleteThe problem is that any system derived rewards for pvp behavior in faction warfare must be zero sum or less. Any other arrangement would be exploited by individuals cooperating from different sides of the fence.
ReplyDeleteThe goals for a functional system would be something that throttles total reward and rate of reward, while also generating circumstances which lead to pvp. Missions are terrible in this regard; reward is infinite, rate is high, and pvp only happens if you don't pay attention for the wrong 2 minutes. Complexes are at least functional in this regard; rate and total are limited by timers, systems, and plex spawning, plus one needs to sit there and be (slightly) vulnerable for 10 or 20 minutes.
The real way to get the desired dynamics would be to reward aggression against hostile pve in comperable amounts to the reward for that content. Think king of the mountain plus some hot potato; a plex is there and the music is playing. The timer counts down, the fighting happens, and whoever is left when it strikes zero gets the reward.
This would be better because: No additional reward could be earned by opposite faction members working together. Pvp is encouraged in order to be the last man standing in the plex and earn the reward. Farming behavior is discouraged because without combat effectiveness they can easily be stolen from.
So get rid of missions completely (or make them spawn things that behave like complexes, not headshot blitzes) add some rules to scale capture speed/reward for multiple ships, and some sort of mechanic to handle what happens when the timer is up but the fight isn't over yet. That would be a good system.
Yes. I'm well aware that ship LP can't be more than the ship+insurance is worth. But at 2.25 x base LP, the reward is half decent, and that certainly is not the ceiling.
DeleteSo what's the ultimate goal then? More isk for FW pilots? Not specific enough. How much more is enough more? Enough to accidentally fall into the 1.5B isk that the "Average" fw pilot needs in a month? What proportion of fw pilots should be able to do that? Half? All of them? Ten percent?
DeleteNobody else in eve besides the most talented individuals can make isk or even break even only pvp'ing. Why should FW pilots get that privilege?
Focusing on increasing the kill LP payout is like arguing that it's better to use a bucket than a cup to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool. Sure it's better, but not enough better, and you'll reach the ceiling of exploitability long before you can make an income source easy enough for the "average" FW pilot to pvp self sufficiently.
"Nobody else in eve besides the most talented individuals can make isk or even break even only pvp'ing. Why should FW pilots get that privilege?"
DeleteThats a silly arguement. Might as well argue that organized nullsec powers shouldn't get the privilege of the majority of tech, or wormhole dwellers shouldn't' get the privilege of sleeper lot. Without some kind of unique perk, the only thing that differentiates FW from lowsec pirating is RP.
Tech is a bad example
DeleteIt's held and controlled by ~20% of the nullsec powers simply because of it's position on the map.
Sleepers are infinite, FW cashmoney was infinite. Tech (moons) aren't.
So lets just assume there would be little to no LP for PvE. You are ending up sitting on station waiting for PvP. You might be out there for solo PvP but many will sit and wait for a fleet. As soon as intel kicks in and you know you can't beat that fleet you start avoiding them.
ReplyDeletethere is a 10 and a 30 man fleet on minma site and a 20 man fleet on amarr. the 10 man fleet is running from amarr, while the 30 man gang chases them and the amarr try to catch the 10 without being kicked by 30.
Maybe there would be some arrangements to make a more equal fight and final fight in a chosen system. But is that what you looking for? Yes? Then join RvB.
With good rewards in the PvE section there is a place where it is worthwhile to be while not fighting but being prepared for a fight. And if the reward is high enough you might even try to hold your position even if the enemy is outnumbering you.
Fighting over a plex for several minutes and finally gaining the huge profit of completing it and having killed fleet double the size of yours will make you proud.
The problem seems to be more often than not that you guys simply go plexing somewhere and hope that the fighting won't happen and too few try to bring the fighting to the plexers.
May thats because defensive plexing or preventing someone from capturing your militias plexes is not rewarded (well enough) but that seems to be the problem.
PvP for PvPs sake won't solve it. There must be a reason to fight and that's the "PvE reward" while you PvP to get that reward. (Why you can't reward PvP too good was mentioned before)
"PvP for PvPs sake won't solve it. There must be a reason to fight and that's the "PvE reward" while you PvP to get that reward. (Why you can't reward PvP too good was mentioned before)"
DeleteI think you nailed it. I have never done FW but am looking forward to it one day. Why? There is a reason behind fighting, its not just a random slug fest. Whether it is the lore or the control over systems, the PvE elements serves as a backdrop for FW and demanding that FW should just be a non-stop PvP bash seems to go against the core of why it exists.
I don't suggest getting rid of the PvE. It has value as e-peen and for RP purposes. I simply suggest lowering the rewards for PvE, while increasing the rewards for PvP (given the limitations of ship+insurance worth.)
DeleteI think PvE that creates PvP opportunities is highly to be desired. Many of those guys plexing FW would be doing level 4 missions in High Sec if that paid more. Instead they're out there creating targets for you guys to kill. That's progress, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteThe PvE hasn't really created more targets. Most fights happen outside of plexes. And the few that do happen in plexes aren't happening because of system control, but because the plex offers control over hull sizes for a fight. If you're in destroyers and don't want to fight battlecruiers, pop into a minor plex. They're not in the plex to run it, get that 0.7% increase in system control, they're in the plex to dictate the type of fight that will happen.
DeletePlexes have value ... but if you want to move warzone and system control, people run the things solo, not in fleets.