Assembly Hall

I recently discovered (because I'm an FW noob) that it is possible for a system in FW to be contested beyond 100%. Far, far beyond 100%, it may not be capped so 300% contested is apparently possible.

This can be done so that the system can be offensively plexed indefinitely, allowing for a constant source of LP payouts. By forcing multiple systems into vulnerable and not flipping them, a militia can 'queue up' a large number of systems that can be farmed for LP until they are ready to flip them all in one go and push for a high level warzone control tier boost in one hit.

Because they are able to push the systems far beyond 100% contested, it becomes impractical for the defending militia to do much about this. Defensive plexing is both boring and does not reward the pilot doing it so there is little incentive to spend long hours trying to resecure the system. Its just not fun and is a poor way to spend your free time.

Mechanics should always encourage players to capture a system when possible, so I suggest that a cap is placed on contesting (to make defence viable) and for rewards to be reconsidered so that system conquest is preferable to system farming.

EDIT:



Seems I wasn't clear enough. I am not asking for LP to be paid out for defensive plexing. I do think that the rewards for factional warfare in general should be reassessed, but I do not think that handing out LP for running defensive plexes is a good idea.

This proposal is about adding a cap on pushing systems beyond vulnerable status and on ceasing to pay out LP for offensive plexing in systems that have already reached vulnerable status.

I am here to state my agreement with Ugleb. Something, and it can be any number of things, needs to be done about the current system. In the current state, it is not in the best interest to conquer a vulnerable system for your own militia as it not only removes a farming ground for you and your allies but also grants your enemies a system to farm loyalty points in, themselves. There's also the fact that in conquering a system, your enemies might not be willing to flip the system themselves when they get make it vulnerable, because it'd remove their own farming ground as well.

I agree people shouldn't keep getting lp for doing plexes after a system is vulnerable. Whether they can make it more contested by doing plexes for free I think that is debatable.

Beyond that this is just another minmatar thread asking for lp for defensive plexing. To that I say:

If you want to defend your system you should do it by killing the war targets who are running offensive plexes. Not by waiting for the war targets to leave and then running a defensive plex.

There are many many good reasons not to have lp for defensive plexing.

Amarrs main method to make a comeback was based on no lp for defensive plexing. If ccp changes the rules and allows lp for defensive plexing I think you see nulli sticking around and farming defensive plexes just like they are farming plexes in systems that are already vulnerable. The compeling reason to not award lp for defensive plexing is that it gives some reason to continue to fight for the side that is currently down.

I would rather they did away with defensive plexing altogether. Force the winning side to actually fight the offensive plexer in order to "defend" their system. "Defending" your system by running a plex when wartargets aren't even present is lame and deserves no reward.

The other option would be to make a player have to pay lp in order to have his defensive plex lower the amount the system is contested. In sum the system is liekly too lopsided for the winning side. We don't need to make it more lopsided. But here are some other reasons its good not to give lp for dplexing.

1) Encourages the defending side to stop plexers in pvp before they capture a plex so that they do not need to orbit a button for no pay. Defensive plexing is best understood as punishment for not defendig your system properly in pvp.

2) Gives some reason to join the side with fewer systems since although your lp is worth very little you have more opportunities to make lp through plexing. It also limits the winning sides ability to make lp through plexing. Yes they can still make lp from missions but that does not help their occupancy efforts and if enough people switch over to missioning instead of plexing then the side with fewer systems is given some respite.

3) It can lead to a war where many systems become vulnerable or close to vulnerable and then flipped in a dramatic fashion. Sort of the topic of this thread. As I mention this can lead to all of the militia getting the isk needed to sustain constant pvp.

4) Its sort of neat to use individual greed as a balance.

5) If you want to farm systems where your enemy can't even dock then eve offers that already. Sov null sec. I think sov null sec could greatly benefit from a system like this where you are rewarded for taking over new space instead of just sitting in your space and farming it. IMO, that is a big reason why null sec has been so boring for the last few years. By forcing people to take over new space in order to gain isk you encourage conflict.

You can not upgrade a system, to hit higher tiers, that is is not owned by your militia. So you want to hold as many systems as you can for as long as you can. But yes killing offensive plexers in pvp and preventing the system from being contested in the first place is the optimal way to do this. Defensive plexing is something that you should rarely have to resort to and having to do it for no lp is somewhat of a punishment for letting the enemy capture so many plexes to begin with. This is a very good thing ccp has done.





There is nothing wrong with the current lp payout structure. Why is rewarding defensive plexing good for the game again? You are rewarding players for sitting back while the enemy oplexes thier system without a fight. Then after they leave you can get in your vigil and d-plex and get more lp!

Ok fair enough.

I do agree that vulnerable systems should stop giving lp for capturing complexes beyond that.

If the vulnerability decays I think that will then allow people to keep farming systems. Plus if one side is truly outnumbered it makes it harder for them to get back to a decent tier. I think the vulnerablility should remain and not decay.

The system does not favor "not flipping" systems. You do not get any lp benefits unless you start flipping systems. However it does favor timing when you flip systems. But that is a good thing IMO. It will add variety.

Basically you have the "plexing phase" where you are either trying to hold on to 80% of the systems or trying to get 80% vulnerable. This phase involves allot of small ship combat. We are in that phase now.

Then you have the "flipping phase." This phase involves allot of larger ship combat. We really never had that phase in the amarr minmatar war. I am interested to see how this plays out.

Why is it that when I came to lowsec, I found so many people asking CCP to give them rewards for defending their own ****.

The reward is that you get to keep it!

Vulnerability should be limted to 100%.
After all, it's not possible to make a system "more" stable.

The idea being, once vulnerable, the system needs to be flipped quickly, before it's defended.

No lp for offensive plexing an already vulnerable system.

This makes sense. Some small buffer so that when you come in with the big ships to hit the bunker the other side doesn't just run a minor plex.

But the italics part I do not understand. Why force a conclusions to vulnerable status? It is what will allow militias to hit tier five. If we have to immediately flip systems the small amount of strategy and planning for the big flipping stage is eliminated and plexing becomes a constant grind where both sides will be lucky to hit tier 3 or 4.

For example I tend to think that when one side decides to start flipping systems there will be large scale fights. It may not happen for amarr minmatar when amarr ultimately flips systems but that would be because of the null sec entities on the amarr side. The minmatar might not have the larger ships to bring. But usuallly I think we will find their will be more fights than there was when we just flipped systems immediately.

Good Idea.

My ideas (stand-alone or combined, whatever suits your fancy):

- Limit it to 100%. Period. No buffer, no nothing .. the beauty of the system flip portion of FW is that all hull sizes are theoretically required so one cannot merely drop BS+ and be assured a flip. FW is all about the plex fights .. doesn't prevent people from slugging it out on the bunker but it should not be the only option.

- Add some way for an attacker to determine which plexes can spawn post-vulnerable state. Could be three external modules on bunker itself, one for each size plex .. when vulnerable two can be disabled by brute force or hacking. Disable one and it accelerates the spawn frequency of the remaining two sizes, disable two and the remaining size plex has triple spawn frequency.
- Adopt pay out system from Incursions .. any LP gained during siege is paid out when job is done not before. If people want LP here and now they can bloody well do missions.
- Add high tracking, destructible sentries to all plexes. Balance their EHP/Dps to encourage bringing the right ship/tool for the plex and purge the gunless frigs people so enjoy chasing.
- Defensive timer count downwards (resets) automatically with no enemy near, to actually capture plex a defender still needs to be present .. 25% of plex LP is added to upgrade pool provided there is some 'missing' (ie. has been taken out by hostile plexing).

- Adopt constellation-wide conflict system from Incursions and have it offer meaningful stuff not available elsewhere (ie. systems still have individual upgrade trees).
Keep WZC mechanic as system upgrade cost modifier only, circumvents the rather large imbalance caused by geography, especially on the Matar/Amarr front** ... ever tried plexing in earnest behind Dal choke point?

Meaningful stuff could be:
-- Availability of LP store items, with list only being fully populated if all systems in constellation are fully upgraded. Removes the ability to go on shopping sprees right there in the trench under siege and adds some logistics to the mix as one must presume most front line constellations will be lacking an upgrade level or two.
-- Increased LP payouts from killing the enemy in constellation the more fortified (upgraded) it is.
-- Increased effect of defensive plexing (more VP, not LP) in constellation the more fortified (upgraded) it is.
-- Increased NPC spawns in plexes in constellation the more fortified (upgraded) it is.
-- Increased LP from offensive plexing in constellation the more fortified (upgraded) it is .. a carrot has two ends and one is pointy!
-- Add you own ...

Unfortunately I doubt you'll get more than the first entry (bug squash) as the power that be are apparently quite happy with FW as is. So much promise, endless possibilities .. *cry*

** Geography issue: Try to count the maximum number of jumps needed to reach the 'deepest' system on either side of the Kourmonen/Auga and Ezzara/Vard gateways .. now check how many choke-points are in either direction as well as high-sec adjacent's (and what Empire holds said adjacent's).
The Gallente/Caldari spat was kicked off with the introduction of an entire region (Black Rise) designed specifically for the purpose as Caldari had no low-sec to speak of .. Devs made do with existing space for the Matar/Amarr theatre as both had plenty of low-sec.

Anyhoo, toodles .. back to setting up my overview. New PC \o/