These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

FW: the metagame

Author
Merdaneth
Angel Wing.
#1 - 2012-07-12 18:10:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Merdaneth
"It would be better if we stop capturing systems, but just contest them to 95% or so, and then try to capture a lot of them in one fell swoop."

I felt a little odd after I said this in Amarr Militia chat. I felt odd because doing your best not to capture systems doesn't sound like one is actually fighting a war for control of these systems. I suggested this course of action for two reasons:

1. The enemy wants us to capture some of their systems, because them losing a system actually creates a valuable resource for them.

2. The enemy doesn't want to defend systems that we are contesting, because not only does defending deny them access to a valuable resource (point 1), it is boring and doesn't give any advantage. For this reason, defending is mostly done by unskilled alts in unfitted ships, alts which can be used to reap rewards when plexing in Caldari-owned systems.

If you are a hardcore gamer, you probably won't even notice what is odd about this. Just try to explain this to someone who isn't a hardcore gamer or not into EVE. Just try to explain that the war is best won by not capturing enemy land.

Not only that, because of the ease of capturing plexes, there are Amarr pilots who have put alts into the Minmatar Militia to farm LP for them. Why is there a game mechanism at work that actually motivates people to work against themselves.

In fact, my strategy is horrible too because it relies fighting my enemy with a weapon that is detrimental to any game: boredom. By not capturing systems, I'm not only denying my enemy valuable resources but the only defense against this strategy is something best (and currently most often) done by skilless alts.

Suppose I am able to convince enough people in the Amarr Militia to follow my strategy. What would be the logical conclusion? I can predict it reasonably well: the enemy would put alts into the Amarr Militia and have them push the nearly fallen systems to 100% and then re-capture it.

Yeah, the Amarr (who are supposed to conquer the systems) don't do so for fear of rewarding the enemy, and the Minmatar put agents into the Amarr Militia and have them conquer systems for them. Say what? With regards to gameplay: I would call that seriously ****** up.

The whole FW is simply so rife with metagaming that it is becoming an insane war. Alts are a major part of the gameplay. Spies, scouts, neutral boosters (or even boosters in the opposing militia), alts which warp out at the first sign of trouble, alts which form no point of interaction, no source of entertainment.

CCP should know by now that any game mechanics that can be 'gamed' for a profit will be gamed for a profit eventually. And currently the whole 'gaming the system for profit' makes the war a farce relying on strategies to maximize the enemy's boredom.

CCP: don't give me a place on a fictionial merry-go-round together with a crowd of faceless alts executing counter-intuitive metag-gaming strategies. Give me a real war to fight!
Deen Wispa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-07-12 18:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
As of this writing, we have the following perversion in the Gal/Cal front;

Gallente has 13 systems vulnerable
Caldari has 16 systems vulnerable

Most of these systems have been vulnerable for a week or two.

This is because;

a) both sides doing what you mentioned
b) both sides are apathetic to bunker busting
c) both sides waiting to ninja bust for upgrade day
d) all of the above

FW = nullsec lite = metagaming lite.

At this point, we're just waiting to see which side will have enough alts of the opposing militia so they can bust bunkers for them. You laugh but I would not be surprised if this eventually comes true.


Welcome to FW.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

subtle turtle
Doozer Mining Cartel
#3 - 2012-07-12 18:41:44 UTC
Actually, there isn't even really a reason to ever flip systems, even in mass. By holding fewer systems, we limit the number of available plexes, and cut off one of the isk fountains for the minimatar. Taking enough systems for tier 4 is unlikely the way things are (we could take them but don't have the man power to hold them), and tier 5 is laughably out of reach. Sure, the minimatar can run fw missions, but with no available plexes, the 2 day alts will have no source for lp. Losing the sov battle entirely is actually the best thing for the amarr right now.
In the meantime,the pvp had been awesome lately. :)
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-07-12 19:15:41 UTC
We actually had a semi-serious discussion in corp a few days ago about switching sides to Caldari, busting all the bunkers close to our home base, then switching right back.

If things keep going on like this, I can easily forsee all sides setting up alt alliances in the opposing miltias. Once a "critical mass" of your own systems are vulnerable, you pick a day and a large chunk of miltia joins the alt alliances to bust THEIR OWN bunkers so they can farm them. By doing this, you can "deplex" the system and make LP on it which is MUCH better than defensive plexing for no reward. As soon as people get their acts together to figure out the logistics, it will happen.

.

Deen Wispa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-07-12 19:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
In the first few weeks of Inferno, there were a healthy number of bunker busting fleets around on both sides. I know people hate structure grinding but it actually does lead to some healthy fleet fights. It's no different than how people RF POSes in order to get a fight. BBing is a great way to get the general militia noobs involved and have them mix it up with the vets thus promoting teamwork and camaraderie.

But both sides have now realized how detrimental BBing is to our other goals and thus delay or avoid it.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

Salicaz
Verrimus Caelum
#6 - 2012-07-12 19:25:00 UTC
Let's not forget. All this was ccp "fixing" FW and they are probably going to have another go at "fixing" it again come winter.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#7 - 2012-07-12 19:48:02 UTC
Merdaneth wrote:
"It would be better if we stop capturing systems, but just contest them to 95% or so, and then try to capture a lot of them in one fell swoop."

I felt a little odd after I said this in Amarr Militia chat. I felt odd because doing your best not to capture systems doesn't sound like one is actually fighting a war for control of these systems. I suggested this course of action for two reasons:

1. The enemy wants us to capture some of their systems, because them losing a system actually creates a valuable resource for them.

2. The enemy doesn't want to defend systems that we are contesting, because not only does defending deny them access to a valuable resource (point 1), it is boring and doesn't give any advantage. For this reason, defending is mostly done by unskilled alts in unfitted ships, alts which can be used to reap rewards when plexing in Caldari-owned systems.

If you are a hardcore gamer, you probably won't even notice what is odd about this. Just try to explain this to someone who isn't a hardcore gamer or not into EVE. Just try to explain that the war is best won by not capturing enemy land.


We are capturing enemy land. But there is some strategy in how and when you strike. Timing is extremely important. You don't just trickle in whenevery you think you can cross the boarder. You get lots of places "vulnerable" and then completely annihlate them.

I really have no problem with this at all. Its not how null sec or world war I, worked but it is how many sorts of attacks worked. Hitler didn't take over part of france and then set up a base out of there gradually taking each provence till he made his way to Paris. I really like that there is some strategy as opposed to just try to attack and flip every system as soon as you can.

Merdaneth wrote:

Not only that, because of the ease of capturing plexes, there are Amarr pilots who have put alts into the Minmatar Militia to farm LP for them. Why is there a game mechanism at work that actually motivates people to work against themselves.


Its one thing to put alts in minmatar to run missions. Running missions for tribal liberation front is no different than running missions for boundles creation. Running minmatar fw missions hurts minmatar by helping us fund our war efforts and to some extent watering down their lp store. But the latter is very minimal at best.

Plexing is different and so people shouldn't do that.


Merdaneth wrote:

In fact, my strategy is horrible too because it relies fighting my enemy with a weapon that is detrimental to any game: boredom. By not capturing systems, I'm not only denying my enemy valuable resources but the only defense against this strategy is something best (and currently most often) done by skilless alts.


Well if you think defensive plexing is the best defense to this then I disagree. You can defend a system by doing things other than defensive plexing. In particular minmatar could get in ships and stop us from capturing the plexes. Then they won't need to defensive plex. That is not boring and that is what they should do.

But yes the fact that plexing is most effiecintly done with pve alts is a problem. If you really want to win the plexign war and do it efficiently get ready for several hours of multitasking pve alts through plexes.

Merdaneth wrote:

Suppose I am able to convince enough people in the Amarr Militia to follow my strategy. What would be the logical conclusion? I can predict it reasonably well: the enemy would put alts into the Amarr Militia and have them push the nearly fallen systems to 100% and then re-capture it.

Yeah, the Amarr (who are supposed to conquer the systems) don't do so for fear of rewarding the enemy, and the Minmatar put agents into the Amarr Militia and have them conquer systems for them. Say what? With regards to gameplay: I would call that seriously ****** up.


I thought of this possiblity. Would it work well? That is hard to say. Does this sort of thing happen in real life? Did roosevelt know about pearl harbor? Did the wester allies in WW2 let germany damage thier eastern allies? I'm not asking these questions to see whether you think it actually happened. My point is just that sometimes there is reasoning behind what seems counterintuitive to common sense.

Merdaneth wrote:

The whole FW is simply so rife with metagaming that it is becoming an insane war. Alts are a major part of the gameplay. Spies, scouts, neutral boosters (or even boosters in the opposing militia), alts which warp out at the first sign of trouble, alts which form no point of interaction, no source of entertainment.


I don't know that spying really has much to do with it. I mean the strategy is somewhat counterintuitive for some but here we are spelling it out on a publich forum. Spys aren't going to make much difference in this game at all. I am glad about that because I think spying in eve is just lying to people on vent.

Alts running plexes with no guns? Yeah that is a problem I think we definitely agree on.

Neutral boosters: Yeah I agree too force teh boosters on grid. Or at least put them on the killmail that they helped create. I do think ccp is just protecting income from alt accounts here - but it is costing them on their core game. But that is a problem not confined to faction war.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#8 - 2012-07-12 19:54:26 UTC

Merdaneth wrote:
"
CCP should know by now that any game mechanics that can be 'gamed' for a profit will be gamed for a profit eventually. And currently the whole 'gaming the system for profit' makes the war a farce relying on strategies to maximize the enemy's boredom.

CCP: don't give me a place on a fictionial merry-go-round together with a crowd of faceless alts executing counter-intuitive metag-gaming strategies. Give me a real war to fight!


The war is a farce not because there is some strategy involving the timing of when you actually flip a vulnerable system.

Its a farce because it is best won by pve alts. That was always the problem with faction war.

Even if we got no rewards but everyone acknowledged that the war was won through superior pvp tactics or even superior pvp numbers faction war wouldn't be lolfw.

But to be fair to ccp, the players were clammoring for rewards more than they were clamoring to make the game pvp centered. Only a few who really understood plexing knew just adding rewards was not going to fix what was broken.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#9 - 2012-07-12 20:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Andre Vauban wrote:
We actually had a semi-serious discussion in corp a few days ago about switching sides to Caldari, busting all the bunkers close to our home base, then switching right back.

If things keep going on like this, I can easily forsee all sides setting up alt alliances in the opposing miltias. Once a "critical mass" of your own systems are vulnerable, you pick a day and a large chunk of miltia joins the alt alliances to bust THEIR OWN bunkers so they can farm them. By doing this, you can "deplex" the system and make LP on it which is MUCH better than defensive plexing for no reward. As soon as people get their acts together to figure out the logistics, it will happen.


Of course the side who wanted it to remain vulnerable would use thier alts in the other militia to shoot them! Lol I guess I can say ok this is a possibility. But it is also a counter to a strategy that has not even yet been successfully employed. So I guess I am saying before we rush to decide that this how things will play out lets just wait and see a bit.

There are also other ways that this could play out beside the alt versus alt warfare at the bunkers!

I think there is a good chance that both sides will realize that due to no lp for defensive plexing both side will have good shots at hitting tier 5 and cashing out eventually. We will stop trying to cling to raa like its our only baby and start just looking for fights in the plexes. (although this is going to require changes from ccp that reduce the effectiveness of alt pve plexing. e.g. notifications and timer countdown after warp outs)

Perhaps instead of havign alt on alt warefare we will realize that if they eventually cash out we will have a chance to do the same thing they did. Perhaps we will decide to just stick with our main characters and try to hold onto the systems as long as we can through pvp. That is instead of defensive plexing after the enemy leaves we will actually just try to fight the offensive plexers and keep them from capturing the plexes in the first place. The longer we do this the longer we can keep tier 5.

But then when the other side does blow their load and trys to start flipping lots of systems to hit tier five we will then be able to start running offensive plexes ourselves and building up lp that we can cash out once we build up enough systems and do a mass flip. And again hopefully the other side wont decide to try to defend their systems through boring defensive plexing. Hopefully they will try to defend their systems by preventing us from taking offensive plexes through pvp.

In other words. I think there is a very good chance that this system may lead to allot of pvp and rewards that help militias pay for that pvp.

Reducing rewards of tier 5 all that just makes it more difficult to afford the ships and mods we want to blow up.

I say give this system more of a chance to play out. It may work out pretty well, now that the losing side at least has a clear strategy. Lets see if we can make it work.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-07-12 20:26:31 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:
We actually had a semi-serious discussion in corp a few days ago about switching sides to Caldari, busting all the bunkers close to our home base, then switching right back.

If things keep going on like this, I can easily forsee all sides setting up alt alliances in the opposing miltias. Once a "critical mass" of your own systems are vulnerable, you pick a day and a large chunk of miltia joins the alt alliances to bust THEIR OWN bunkers so they can farm them. By doing this, you can "deplex" the system and make LP on it which is MUCH better than defensive plexing for no reward. As soon as people get their acts together to figure out the logistics, it will happen.



Hmm thanks for the look out. Ill prepare the boys to start shooting you guys down.


There is strategy for this however I am not going to just spill my candy in the lobby for anyone. Think real hard and you'll figure it out...



Cearain do you ever post something not a wall of text...for crying out loud ur not even in FW anymore...

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation

Mutnin
SQUIDS.
#11 - 2012-07-12 20:33:49 UTC
The whole system is broken and it's likely CCP wont do anything to fix it. Some of us try to defend systems but it's just a lot of chasing 2 week old farm alts around and I personally de-contested 4 systems over the course of 3 days. 2 of these systems were upwards of 40% contested.

In the 3 days that I don't log into EVE due to work, by the time I came back 2 of those systems were already over 30% contested again. Until there is some reward that adds balance we are likely just see see either 1 side totally give up with the other dominating such as the Amarr /Min war front or each side trying to our farm the other and flip enough systems for LP dump days as on Cal/Gal war front.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#12 - 2012-07-12 20:43:04 UTC
BolsterBomb wrote:
Andre Vauban wrote:
We actually had a semi-serious discussion in corp a few days ago about switching sides to Caldari, busting all the bunkers close to our home base, then switching right back.

If things keep going on like this, I can easily forsee all sides setting up alt alliances in the opposing miltias. Once a "critical mass" of your own systems are vulnerable, you pick a day and a large chunk of miltia joins the alt alliances to bust THEIR OWN bunkers so they can farm them. By doing this, you can "deplex" the system and make LP on it which is MUCH better than defensive plexing for no reward. As soon as people get their acts together to figure out the logistics, it will happen.



Hmm thanks for the look out. Ill prepare the boys to start shooting you guys down.


There is strategy for this however I am not going to just spill my candy in the lobby for anyone. Think real hard and you'll figure it out...



Cearain do you ever post something not a wall of text...for crying out loud ur not even in FW anymore...



Bolster do you ever make a post that does not demonstrate you ignorance? P

Yes I am in faction war. Other than a brief stint in rvb and a break from eve I have been in faction war since my character was 2 months old.

And I am sorry you are dissappointed that Hans is not leading amarr to victory but he is minmatar and never was amarr. We wouldn't trust him anyway. P

I would like to hear this big catbox strategy though. I hope you all act on it soon. The suspense is killing me.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cromwell Savage
The Screaming Seagulls
#13 - 2012-07-12 21:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cromwell Savage
Cearain wrote:

I would like to hear this big catbox strategy though. I hope you all act on it soon. The suspense is killing me.


Well..one thing we can be certain of...if Bolster is leading it...then it will involve more "winning" like this:

http://gallente.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13900155

Ninja edit: Squid summary (not sure why our losses aren't showing now on the gal board) http://caldari.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13899875
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#14 - 2012-07-12 21:39:06 UTC
Deen Wispa wrote:
As of this writing, we have the following perversion in the Gal/Cal front;

Gallente has 13 systems vulnerable
Caldari has 16 systems vulnerable

Most of these systems have been vulnerable for a week or two.

This is because;

a) both sides doing what you mentioned
b) both sides are apathetic to bunker busting
c) both sides waiting to ninja bust for upgrade day
d) all of the above

FW = nullsec lite = metagaming lite.

At this point, we're just waiting to see which side will have enough alts of the opposing militia so they can bust bunkers for them. You laugh but I would not be surprised if this eventually comes true.


Welcome to FW.



I think it is more gaming than metagaming but I gues metagaming lite could be accurate. Its just that this game often doesn't involve much in the way of true strategy other than get the biggest blob, it seems otherworldly to think this sort of thing through. So anyway I think its closer to gaming than metagaming and I actually kinda like games.

I have briefly tried to think things through on how I would proceede on the gallente caldari side and its more difficult. I don't know that flipping systems for the opponent thinking you could then plex them up to vulnerable would be the winning tactic. I mean that would definitely tell the other side who your alts are and I think you are no worse off just running offensive plexes instead.

I think on the amarr side things are pretty much more straight forward because the minmatar pretty much gave us a clean slate. We can plex all the systems up on a more even basis. We can just keep plexing the least contested system so we have a situation where they are all ready to flip at the same time. If the minmatar want to help they certainly can, we can plex the systems they are not plexing for us. Smile But hopefully if we just continue to offensive plex evenly accross all systems we will eventually have all the systems coming into vulnerable about the same time.

I don't think there is much minmatar can do other than try to fight us in the plexes. Well they could defensive plex but I think that is dumb.

But anyway I think its important that we seperate out the problem of pve alts running plexes and this sort of strategical dilemna of when and how to optimally flip systems. I mean the op sort of blends the two together. But they are really seperate issues. One is definitely a problem the other I don't necessarilly think is bad at all. I actually think it could work out very well for fw as a whole.

But I haven't figured out operation cat box so that could be a wild card.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#15 - 2012-07-12 21:46:07 UTC
Cromwell Savage wrote:
Cearain wrote:

I would like to hear this big catbox strategy though. I hope you all act on it soon. The suspense is killing me.


Well..one thing we can be certain of...if Bolster is leading it...then it will involve more "winning" like this:

http://gallente.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13900155

Ninja edit: Squid summary (not sure why our losses aren't showing now on the gal board) http://caldari.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13899875



Well I am not going to point fingers about fcing ability. I don't fc but if I did I would likely have similar results. The only thing I can say is props to bolster for bringing the fight.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Major Killz
Tr0pa de elite.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#16 - 2012-07-12 22:42:19 UTC
I hope you know CCP will never be able to get things right. I mean really. Do you all believe there wont be something else in the future that has you all back on the forums crying and complaining? Not to mention the players will always find a way to take advantage of whatever and make a profit or exploit something else. Many of you invest to much time in arguments that just go around in circles.

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ![/u]

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-07-12 23:18:49 UTC
Unlike in 0.0, in FW you get rewards for capturing a system, not for holding one. Therefore it is to your benefit to repeat the capture event (plexing) as often as possible, regardless of how many systems you actually hold. The extreme of this would be having alts in both militias and just flipping one system back and forth. At that point, which militia are you really fighting for?

I would compare it to hunting. You get a benefit (food) every time you kill a deer. You don't get any benefits from having killed ten, a hundred, or a thousand deer in your lifetime. But if you hunt too much, the deer will not be able to reproduce fast enough, and over several years you will kill all of them. Sometimes, in order to be able to hunt deer, you have to not hunt deer for a while and give them a chance to repopulate.
Plyn
Uncharted.
#18 - 2012-07-13 00:06:54 UTC
Did FW a while back in the day, just now returning and found this thread very interesting.

This might be a ******** question, but is there a compelling reason to not give LP for defensive plexing? Wouldn't this at least alleviate the feeling of being penalized for having taken a system?

Can the 'major', perhaps even the 'normal', plexes have their difficulty or AI modified to make gunless, stabbed t1 frigates a bad choice for them, diminishing the ability of 2 week old plex alts to affect the outcome in systems? Would this have a positive or negative effect in trying to move FW to what we think it should be?

Perhaps consider an addition to system control that awards control level based on PvP kills in that system, based on ship value like LP handouts for kills are done now? Would this give enough encouragement to potential defenders to interfere with plexers coming into their systems?
Andiedeath
We Aim To MisBehave
I Will End Your Whole....
#19 - 2012-07-13 00:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Andiedeath
Plyn wrote:
Did FW a while back in the day, just now returning and found this thread very interesting.

This might be a ******** question, but is there a compelling reason to not give LP for defensive plexing? Wouldn't this at least alleviate the feeling of being penalized for having taken a system?

Can the 'major', perhaps even the 'normal', plexes have their difficulty or AI modified to make gunless, stabbed t1 frigates a bad choice for them, diminishing the ability of 2 week old plex alts to affect the outcome in systems? Would this have a positive or negative effect in trying to move FW to what we think it should be?



Agreed with the LP for defensive plexing. Although in that case LP rewards and contested amounts should be stopped at 0% for defensive and 100% for offensive. It may also be worth making hubs have less HP and put defenses on them...

A simple fix in regards to the offensive plexes. Rats should be killed or some other objective met. It seems crazy that a stabbed/cloaky alt could run circles around the enemy and win... What are they doing?? Making the enemy NPCs so dizzy that they give up???

Also FW missions should give weight to the war and be available in ANY system that is contested or controlled by the enemy, awarding LP/VP based on the type of mission. I understand the significant overhaul that would be required although FW missions are a very under-utilised PVP/PVE mechanic.

Director

Sefem Velox

INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#20 - 2012-07-13 01:42:06 UTC
Plyn wrote:
Did FW a while back in the day, just now returning and found this thread very interesting.

This might be a ******** question, but is there a compelling reason to not give LP for defensive plexing? Wouldn't this at least alleviate the feeling of being penalized for having taken a system?



You are not penalized for taking a system. Don't think that just because factions want to wait for the right moment to flip systems that holding a system is a penalty its not.

As it is right now it is unclear that the amarr will ever make a comeback. To the extent they start making it easier for minmatar to hold thier lead our slim hope gets even slimmer. 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 aere 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.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

12Next page