EVE General Discussion

I'm gonna have to agree with Shalee here.

I'd just like to add that it would be great to see a reward for pvp outside of plexing as well. Currently there are some lp rewards which, frankly, are a joke. You can solo a wartarget battleship in a t1 frigate and get less lp than you would get from a single mission.
Which reminds me, the missions should maybe get a little nerf. FW is absolutely full of people who just run missions and do nothing pvp/plex related. Maybe introduce a system where you HAVE to do pvp or plex before you can run fw missions. Something like 1 mission per kill/plex.
By rewarding people for pvp there may also be a chance to encourage solo/small gangs. Simply share all pvp rewards between the people who participated in a kill. This way a blob killing a single target barely gets any reward while a small gang gets a little something.
Just an idea.

And if this has already been suggested I apologize, I havent read the entire thread and honestly I'm quite spent right now as I'm typing this.

Again, to play devil's advocate for a common "fix" I seeing discussed here, regarding the interest in LP payouts for player kills:

Assuming an LP reward for kills is implemented, what is to stop me and Shalee Lianne from agreeing to blow each other up back and forth, to farm LP?

Or a player and their alt in the opposing militia?

Not saying this idea won't work, only that there needs to be a disincentive to farm, and only an incentive towards hard-fought, legitimate, kills.

The problem I see with this is that it penalizes the new players who want to join FW to learn how to PvP. Newer players typically only have a single account, and forcing them to train up hauling alts (the only way to safely solo transport your ships in lowsec is with a cloaky transport). The frustration of someone working hard to buy a bunch of ships, and losing them overnight when they werent even playing, will kill the morale and enthusiasm from someone relatively new to EvE.

I personally know FW pilots who wanted to go to nullsec for a change of pace, and lost all their ships this way, and were so demoralized they fled back to FW to start over. Great for us, sad that a single move killed their interest in a region and its gameplay.

Most of us established players could handle this change just fine, its more that I think most of us want to get FW back to a place where it encourages enlistment, and provides fun PvP for people of all skill levels, including noobs. The perfect FW scenario in my opinion is one where your actions are relevant whether you're in rifter gangs seizing small plexes, or battleship fleets with logi capping large plexes. There should be something meaningful for people of all skill levels to engage in.

We could certainly ask for FW to be transformed into a nullsec scenario with station lockouts, etc, but I think it might be catering to the crowd that FW has now, rather than the crowd we want FW to attract once its fixed and working again.

I'm totally open to reflection and feedback though, just because I see problems with this particular fix doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a better way of implementing it.

Ohhhhhh. No, I wouldn't want stations to lock people out completely. I thought it was more like a penalty thing where you get shot at by the station and you aren't allowed to use the services or something.

I kind of don't like that at all, I have ships scattered all over the warzone. But if it happened that way, you're right, those of us who have been there forever will adapt as per usual.

The new guys would be forced to join corporations and make contacts etc, so it still wouldn't be a horrible thing really.

I dont think you quite read my statement - If you have assets in a station, and I have a busy few days with school/work and can't make it online, and get locked out of a station, that has absolutely nothing to do with lack of planning or not being careful. It would just penalize you for not being online 24/7. Thats my personal objection.

Shalee, sounds like we're on the same page than.

I know some in here are advocating COMPLETE station lockout, meaning no docking, and thus no access to your stuffs. Nothing wrong with suggesting that, I'm just making sure we all think about and discuss the consequences is all.

I think people commonly misunderstand me on this one. It's not the Alliance itself I want in Faction Warfare, its the people in them.

I think when everyone thinks Alliance, they immediately assume Supercap blobs. They don't have to go hand in hand. I would in no way advocate Alliance admission to FW, unless the mechanics are fixed to discourage / eliminate Supercaps from FW, either by fixing plexes enough that we all fight there, and not on the gates, or by locking Supers from lowsec entirely.

But lets assume for a minute that they fix plexes, they give payouts, or system consequences, and 90% of the fights between miliitas starts happening in the plexes again like it used to....in a case like that, with no supers involved, why than penalize player groups wanting to join FW because they belong to an alliance?

Any group of corps can form an Alliance even if they have no supercaps, and any Alliance with supercaps can come fight militia fleets on gates, just like they do now. It's the supercap presence that everyone objects to.

My point is that the Alliances fight in FW battles right now - they get batphoned in by FC's on both sides (I was there when the Amarr were losing a cap fight and summoned a dozen AAA Nyxs), and they take up presence in our warzone whether we like it or not. This has nothing to do with whether they are flying under a militia flag or not.

And before PL came to town, we most certainly had large fleet battles - It was fairly common to have 50 vs 50 BS fleets, or carrier battles, between militias.

Assuming we fix the supercap presence issue, than all thats left are large numbers of pilots in the same ships we militia corps fight in every day - what is the harm in letting them join in that scenario?

Again, I understand the initial freakout when people read this, but I'm trying to clarify that I have the exact same objection as you do - I just see an alternative solution.

If fleet size is the issue, than lets fix the fleet size issue - but fleet size really has nothing to do with whether you belong to a militia corp or Alliance - its where and when and how the fights take place. Move em back to the plexes, and we're all on the same level again, militia or alliance member alike.

Yeah, kinda redundant. I just think we've all grown bigger and fly bigger ships now, so the old argument of "if we let alliances in, they'll just blob everything" died out for me when the militias themselves started fielding blobs and capitals. Now, its just a matter of fleet size and mecanics the way I see it, so blocking alliance members from militia membership just seems really arbitrary.

I don't know what the answer is exactly (other than I know I want supers outta lowsec), I just want FW to restore the numbers it used to have, so i'd love to see broader miliita membership, even if it means tapping alliances. Like I said, they're here anyways, might as well pick a side.

I have read through a number of various posts and have the following comments/suggestions.

Firstly, I would like to tackle the discussion of removing navies from high sec. I am 100% AGAINST this suggestion. My reasons are as follows

1) The factions are at war. Why would they not have their navy defending their empire space? The militia is a capsuleer force that supports a given empire. As such, their enemies MUST treat you as hostile and intercept you for the sake of FW making any sense from a Universe/RP perspective (I am not a full RP person, but I still acknowledge FW is based on a premise).

2) High sec should not be 100% safe for a FW member, but home turf should be somewhat safer. People should be able to do non-FW activities with a FW character in their own/allied empire space. Be this mission, incursion or move some ships around knowing that the navy mechanic is in place (which still leaves an element of risk)

3) The trade hubs will be camped 23.5/7 and low sec loses it meaning as people will be in high sec all the time. CCP wants people to move out of high sec to low/null. This change gives them a way to be in FW AND stay in high sec.

4) New players who join FW will be targets 100% of the time with no option to withdraw from the warzone (i.e. low sec) to skill up a bit, earn isk etc... without being ganked. Current navy mechanics mean that they still could be killed, but the person has to be skilled at evading the navy to do it which is better for all concerned.

5) The navy also is used to keep people out that have actively prosecuted missions against that empire. Eve is about risk/reward AND consequences. A carebare that runs mission for amarr/caldari is engaged by the navy because they have blown up so many ships belonging to that faction. Is Soundwave really going to remove the navy as we know it from EVERY aspect of the game?



Some comments on some of the (IMHO stupid) ideas/comments that have been made:

1) People have said to remove concord. The navy and concord serve DIFFERENT roles. Players should not be performing the role of concord.

2) People have said standings should determine who is allowed to engage other players. This should have nothing to do with it; otherwise you end up having non-FW people getting ganked and/or neutral alts getting into FW fights. This is bad in so many ways (this is in regards to high sec - low sec is low sec and going GCC on a neutral or using an alt is what happens).



The following are some of my thoughts/suggestions (many which I have made a number of times and seen others post as well)

1) Captains Quarters - Shows details on the screens of what is going on with reports and updates. There should also be Intel for people to see how contested a system is so they know if they should push on it to flip it vs. try to defend if more.

2) RR mechanics for FW. Repping someone in your militia should not impact FACTION standings in any way, shape or form. Sec status hits are a separate issue. That being said, I should not get shot by gate/station gun for repping a -5 allied militia pilot who has NOT gone GCC and is engaging an opposition he has legit aggression rights on due to a (permanent) war dec.

3) Off-colour allies not showing as allies (caldari/amarr + gal/minnies). Perhaps shooting them should not incur a faction penalty, but I should at least be able to quickly tell they are militia vs. random neutrals in low sec some way besides going "Show Info" on them.

4) Plex spawn mechanics. This has been specified a million times. Plexes should be available (based on a seeding mechanic that does give some variation) all throughout the day, not just post DT.

5) Offensive plexing should require the attacking militia to blow up the NPCs for timer to run down.

6) Plexes should escalate like exploration plexes. If you complete an escalated plex, the original starting location should get a boost/reduction to contestion as well as the one you just did. Perhaps an escalation mechanic that chains a few together could even see all systems in a constellation get a slight change to their sov... The other thing that is required for escalation is to have offensive AND defensive plexes. Meaning if I do a defensive one with my fleet, and it escalates to an offensive one, we have to go and run that. This means fleets are moving around trying to force sov changes = more pvp and not just locked to one system and the ones next door as is the current case

7) Adjust missions so that they cannot be done solo in a SB as well as balance overall faction NPCs

8) Pirate ships are OP as previously mentioned - faction ships should be the highest level for a tier OR there should be a split tier system such that some allow pirate ships and some don't (i.e. best you can use is faction). People need to remember the changes coming to destroyers as well!!!

9) Super Caps SHOULD be allowed in low sec - the nerf and new tier 3 BC will allow us to counter them more effectively

10) Missions should be more objective based and less "blow up xyz"... I should be running the missions to influence the war zone, not because an agent has sent me there to shoot some scripted NPC engagement...

We need to be VERY careful about this - are we saying the Amarr missions vs. Minnie NPCs need to be harder, or the Minnie missions VS Amarr NPCS need to be harder???

If you put you fleet in plex there is no point to hot drop supers because they can not engage your fleet in there. If you are doing something else than plexing you are not actually playing FW, you are just doing pvp and then it is all right to have hot dropped by supers. Plexes are originally intended to make possible to have fair fight with ship limitations, now you want to make whole lowsec as limited plex.


Anyway i think that super nerf that CCP has proposed can be enough to nerf those hotdrops a bit.

And this will add amount of players plexing? No, it will cause that those who now plex stops and plex only when relly needed.
Fact is that those who constantly do plexing sure knows how contested systems is, and you can alwyas test it by doing some plexing and see how spot size changes.

Btw, it is too late to defend when systems goes too close to be vulnerable, atleast gallente need couple extra down times to defend it