Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The most frequent attack anyone faces in FW is a ganking pirate[s]. Presently several tiers in faction wars are basically occupied by griefing 'neuts' who have nothing to do with faction wars but they prey so heavily on both sides that neither can close the gap. Caldari were doing fine against Gallente, a boatload of 'neuts' got involved (and still are) and now the Caldari hold 0 systems.

None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW.

It's not that the Gallente are pounding them down. It's not that the Gallente own all five possible tiers - as of this moment they own about 61%. The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).

Minmatar versus Amarr: presently 41% for Min, about 21% for the Amarr. The other 38% of available tier - that goes to people who can't use it.

I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers tacitly promote anarchy?

If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now.

If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer who might attack anyone at any time! yah, the major warring armies would have let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place.

It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.

I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake.

Incorrect.

You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences.

Neutrals have the the advantage over FW pilots in FW - this needs to be addressed, no matter if you call it low sec attributes or make other excuses of non-consensual PvP.

In FW complexes, FW pilots should have an advantage over neutrals or at least equal opportunities.

It's pretty much normal. In fact... many of us older FW guys prefer there to be neuts. They add a special "chaos" factor into the mix.


You make it sound like people should be fighting for a higher cause.

I can say that I personally do not fight in FW for anything more than profits, convenience of targets, and "just cause." And I do not need a reason beyond that.


What do you mean "tacitly promote?"

EVE is a libertarian's wet-dream. A dystopian future where the lives of those without cybernetic implants are a dime a dozen and easily lost and replaced... a place where master assassins take over the bodies of others and make them perform atrocities that spark wars, causing death and destruction for billions... a universe where everything has a price and the only order that really exists is the one you can enforce with your strength, cunning, money, and/or knowledge.


What if we WANT them too?



Okay... first... FW players are not "soldiers" in the traditional sense. We are more akin to privateers/corsairs of old... third parties contracted by an entity to fight in their stead.

Second... because we are "third parties" certain rules apply. We can only legally attack those people and things we are commissioned to. Outside of those targets, "normal rules" of engagement apply.
"Neutral" parties being what they are... anything and everything is a target to them if they both wish it and are willing to accept the penalties for breaking the "normal rules" of engagement. They just won't get any FW reward because they don't have a contract like we do.

Third... why? Pirates and outlaws have been in low-sec space well before Faction Warfare was ever around. And FW mechanics were designed such that anyone can interfere in anything (as evidenced by the missions and complex beacons).
Low-sec is everyone's space. Not just FW's.

Fourth... yes... conflict is supposed to arise because of this. That's the point. One neutral entity may decide that helping one side in FW is in its interest because the other side is promising to "kick them out" of the general area. This in turn creates a temporary alliance that may yield some interesting results in the future.

Or just shoot them first if they have a sec status below -5.0 or are suspect. There is no penalty for shooting those people.

You already have options, but they may come with consequences. There should be no special rules for FW pilots against neutrals. It's not called FNW for a reason.

Want them dead? Shoot them.

Want out of the consequences? Don't shoot first or pick targets -5 or under.

If (and I mean if) any change should be made, then it should be for all.
Make sec loss in low sec pod only. It's simple and may lead to more chaos / fun.

Maybe the FW Militias should band together and evict the pirates from the systems in question. Then the problem would be solved.

Which is just one manifestation of the problem. Neuts/pirates are coddled in their attacks on FW players. FW players take standing hits if they defend themselves... or they can let the approaching ship with no reason to be in their area BUT malice get in to their opponents favorite range, heated up and target locked... that dog's dinner is the present choice. Attacking parties claim people unhappy with this situation are too soft but its the neuts/pirates who are getting preferential treatment, getting our behinds handed to them on a platter. That's what they don't want changed. While I can understand their desire to retain an easy/imbalanced situation it sure doesn't derive from - or prove - their courage or machismo; nor even their cunning.

There is no coddling of anyone in a FW plex. Assuming there are two ships in space there is your ship and your enemy and the gate limits the ships that are usable in an engagement. This is as fair a fight as you will ever see. You can either handle this situation including its consequences or you can't. Make your call and live with it but you are not entitled to LP because you bothered to show up.

Even if I did buy this, you realize that anyone with a sec status of -5.0 or less is COMPLETELY immune to this criticism. You will lose no security status for locking and firing at us first and so if you let one of us into range before you do anything you have literally no one to blame but yourself. You can warp away from me to a gate or station and the guns will help you if I do anything while the reverse is not true.

I'm sorry, you were saying something about how I get preferential treatment?

If it makes you feel any better I've even supported the idea that players ought to gain security status for fighting against outlaw players with a bonus security status gain if they destroy the ship. Would that help your problem with security losses? I doubt it.

Alternatively you could try paying the local pirate associations to ignore your side for a while, it's worked for some in the past.

If your militia cannot deal with pirates then they are a failure of a militia.

Youa re fightign for sov.... being soberan in a place include among other things to deal with any forces againgt the law.

Man up and do your job.


BTW, there are no griefers in eve.. except people that bump a freighter for 7 hours non stop :P