Getting a bit ahead of yourselves aren't you? How about instead of adding more stats after a match, you actually spend some time changing things so people trying to decide between the different modes (instant battle, faction warfare, etc) can see what it is they will be effecting before they choose.

I swear you guys intentionally make this **** as obtuse and unfriendly for new players as possible.

Why doesn't highlighting "factional warfare" on the selection screen explain in detail what the mode is about, exactly what sort of bonuses winning or losing a match creates, and some basic guidelines on who should be thinking about queueing up (IE: people in squads looking to support a specific faction)?

KInda confused about what that list means. Need some explanation.

I think FW will be funner if there is a more distinct reason to fight for a certain faction. Whether it be by a specific types of awards (race related) or it be by some factions paying more while others give out more goodies. These rewards will have to be loyalty based though. So someone that has been fighting for Gallente for a while and comes over to Caldari for one battle, because they heard they pay more, won't be able to make the maximum contract. Basically the longer one fights for a faction, the more ISK and/or goodies he would get.

Before we get started with ideas to further show the impact that FW has, how about we look at other FW stats? Look at how lopsided most of these battles are. Look at how little experience many of the players who join FW have. Look at how many squads actually get formed in FW. Look at how many people have left all four boxes checked for their FW preferences.

FoxFour, there is a big problem here with FW now compared to before. While it is nice how easy it is to get into FW now, it has created an unintentional side effect. You have many, many new and unexperienced players or players without a squad searching for FW battles now because it is just as easy to get into as Public Contracts, but Factional Contracts sounds cooler. The negative side effect here is that in FW you also have a ton of experienced players in squads playing, meaning the battles can get extremely lopsided.

Look, I'm not saying these new guys should not be able to play FW, but honestly when they have so little skill invested into anything they aren't doing anything but hurting the team and FW itself doesn't offer them any more than they could get out of Public Contracts. Also it doesn't make sense that the 24th Imperial Crusade or Tribal Liberation Force would hire all these rookies. Sure it's fine in EVE, but EVE doesn't have a player cap like Dust does. When only 16 people are allowed per team, it creates some big problems.

So here's what I personally want to see done:

1. Add requirements to FW. Say each player must meet a time since creation requirement, a warpoint requirement, and a skill point requirement. It doesn't have to be ridiculously large, just say something that says, "At least they played for a week or two and should know what's going on."

2. Put everyone into a squad automatically. If you queue up with a squad then everything happens as normal. If you don't queue up for a squad, then it will autogroup you into squads. Also add an option for players without a squad to apply for squad leader, working sort of like MAG (I know, I know) in that sense.

3. Add standings as soon as possible so we can get out of this flip-flopping business. I noticed at first Amarr would win a ton a matches, but now it seems like all the blueberries getting creamed by Amarr wised up and switched sides so they too could win, but all it did was flip flop the lopsided-ness.

No. It shouldn't be team deploy only. Actually this is the last thing it should be. FW should introduce blueberries to a little more serious PvP. Like meeting Corp squads more often than in public matches. But it should be open for everyone. This isn't PC. If you start with a FW Teamdeploy only, then FW isn't like a Pub skirmish anymore, it will become exactly like PC. Like in Eve, everybody should be able to participate in FW and get the benefits. The problem is that, at the moment, there aren't any benefits in FW.

I think my level of interest in EVE-side FW stats is somewhere south of zero. I don't play EVE. Until there's rewards Dust-side that are special or unique in some way, it's just another way to play Skirmish matches.

In the future fw battles will become more meanjngful. They already work on introducing standing and so on. Why should i be forced to always get a whole team together just to participate? What you want to do is changing fw to corp battles just for your own desire to have high level fights. That's not what fw is there for. You can't just run around, wanting to lock out blueberries who just want to play some rounds without having to do organized squad action of everything that influences eve online.

You may have noticed that i am in a corp. I also participated in several pc battles. But more than often i just want to sit back, turn my mic off and just have fun without having to be overly serious and without having to talk to my squad. But at the same time i want to jnfluence eve online. I don't care about pub matches at all. I do care about fw though, even in its current state and i see no reason to change it so only top players can participate.

And have you even thought this through? Making fw team deploy only would GREATLY reduce the amount of players participating in it. And there aren't exactly few fw-systems. There are even a lot more planets and on these planets there are more than just 1 district. You don't even try to look at the bigger picture. All you care about are the battles you would fight in. You don't care about the eve side of fw. But fw is the first real link we have to eve. That's what this is about.

Besides that, foxfour isn't asking about what they should change at fw in general. He's asking about statistics we want to see. That ccp is working on fw and wants to make it stand out from pub matches is no secret at all.

Please stay on topic. This is a discussion for another thread.