Warfare & Tactics

Both(pvp and plexing) have some simillarity to gambling, both pay one side 2.5xs what it pays the other side. Very few casino games are that slanted because, no one would play.

It's clearly dumb from an economic perspective to choose to fight for the losing side.

Some people argue that pvp is better when you are outshipped and outnumbered. That hasn't been my experience, but lets see how it goes.

How can you guys do this when your side cannot even afford to fly any ships? /me confused.

well one, they've never done it but everytime i warped away they thought "**** yea we got to troll him" like I gave a **** lol. Also a tengu is a ship like any other and can be killed by 5-7 ships flown by angry little kids like any other. It's the fact you guys thought it was a great achievement to kill a tengu once that I find so hilarious. You must be doing FW wrong if you don't have 5+bil at all times, but then again you sat around defensive plexing and hiding from goodfights.

you loved trying to stick to smaller plexes and used a legion whenever you had one, it's not my fault you can't buy a link char or train one, scrubs.

I think you have us confused with someone that refuses to log into the game and/or fight for our systems/lp.

Last time i checked I have more ships than I know what to do with. Difference is I don't waste my money on 300 or 400 milion isk ships that I don't undock without triage support and/or a logi chain.

With 300 or 400 million isk I usually buy a months (two weeks worth if I am extremely aggressive with them) worth of cruisers, dessies, assault frigs and the occasional bc.

Not to mention an endless supply of navy mods/ships even at tier one or two. So what if the other guy gets them cheaper it doesn't mean I don't have the means to get them both lp and lp generating wise. It also doesnt mean that I refuse to enjoy the game because the other side gets them cheaper.

Problem is ehhh......well......I undock and play the game.

DCM so mad, so bad.

I guess your assumption is there won't be any pvp that might make completing the plex uncertain.



If i see someone on the market selling the same thing for less I will pay less. As people join fw they will see one side pays less and one pays more for the same thing. Are they going to choose less pay or more pay? I think I know the answer although you may pretend to be unsure. But time will tell.

Do you mean you were spending 40k lp for a slicer and 180k lp for a nomen?

The risk of PvP itself was not part of your original argument, you are moving the goal posts. If you take a look, you'll notice that I structured my wording so as to preclude such an attempt.

Eve is a laissez-faire game, of course the winners have an advantage. This advantage is necessary as motivation for the struggle and integral for the fabric of the game. The only thing we should be discussing is if the Amarr can make enough money to reasonably stay in ships, all other points are nebulous. This is not socialism, if you want something, you take it. This is the core of Eve, it always has been. Do you think if NCdot cried on the forums enough that CCP would give them techmoons because it is unfair how many the Goons have? Of course not. Eve is not fair, it never has been and never should be.

No, I specifically used the term "completing a plex."

The Inferno tier system was completely ****** in the ass by farmers that were unduly influencing warzone control, it was a good system that was implemented in a terrifically broken way.

Just sum it up briefly for us all in no uncertain terms, what do you want done to FW?

Believe it or not we both agree. It was mainly the farmers and the mechanics that encouraged people farming plexes in gunless frigates that made inferno so bad and kept the amarr from being able to keep economic parity.

I would like the the original inferno tier system but toned down. Instead of tier 5 being 75% discount maybe make it a 60% discount. But keep it so there is no lp for d-plexing and keep it where there is no reason to join a side that just did a tier 5 cashout because you will have just missed the boat.

The cashouts gave goals instead of this forever grind we have now. Perhaps the time between cashouts should be longer or shorter. I really don't care, but that could easilly be accomplished by changing the vp per plex. (yes i said vp not lp. vp is how much a system is contested per plex)

As for the other changes I would still recomend that they make plexing a pvp game as per my signature. But if they must have npcs I like what hans has proposed and what ccp is doing. Must kill them all etc. Another key is to start notifying us when plexes are attacked and a form of timer rollback. But these notifications and timer rollbacks will not be good if the war is lopsided. And unfortunately because they chose a lopsided financial system that sort of ruins the whole thing.

To the extent people say that there is no advantage to winning under the old system if everyone can hit tier five, I would say that if your side currently has over 50% of the systems you get full lp for pvp and a 50% bonus (over pre inferno rates) to the lp you get for missions. If your side has under 50% of the systems then you get half the lp for pvp and only preinferno pay for missions.

Plus the side that hold the majority of systems over a 12 month period would get some other perk. Perhaps an economic one like an additional item in the lp store, or just improve a unique item (make amarr plates or eg, minmatar shield worth buying) Or it could be a non-economic one like a statue in the fw system that was held by the militia long enough. The statue could be of the person who got the most kills or the most vp or the ceo or the corp with the most kills or vp or it could be a statue of all 4 or whatever. Other sorts of swag for winning could be an increase in your factions corporations in the war zone. So if minmatar win some of the carthum stations might become boundless stations. There are plenty of options.

The idea is that there would be very short term goals like capture this plex. Medium term goals like achieve a tier 5 cashout, and long term goals like memoralize our achievments permantently in the game through continued dominance. Because these goals all have different timelines people would always have more to fight for. The game would be economically balanced as long as everyside could achieve tier 5 cashouts.

If they did this and one side still couldn't hit a tier 5 cashout then they could do some tweaks like reduce the vp for d-plexing. Or they could say you can't start plexing a system for a set time after it flips, or if you do, you don't get as much vp. Which option would depend on the specific reason why a certain faction was unable to achieve any tier 5 cashouts.

FW doesn't need to be economically lopsided to make it meaningful.