Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There are two statements both are true.

Just because amarr and gallante have not yet cashed out at tier 5 does not mean we can't. Both have cashed out at tier 4. And the system is only about 3.5 months old.

But lets assume I am wrong and amarr and gallente can't make it to tier 5 under the current system, (which we may never know if they change it in winter.)

If I am wrong and we can't make it then clearly rewarding defensive plexing with lp is doing the opposite of balancing the game. If amarr and gallante can't hit tier 5 under the current system and you don't want people to just pile on the winning side then you need to make defensive plexing less rewarding, not more.

Like I said force the pilot to pay lp to have the plex effect contested level. Or maybe have the defensive plex not yield as many vp.

Han's proposal is just making what is perhaps already an unbalanced system, completely unbalanced.

Here's the context:

Kuehnelt: "Simply removing defensive LP from the proposal would remove all risk of that. So long as defensive LP is included... well, it should be easy to imagine an extreme level of defensive LP that would cause the initially-losing faction to instantly give up on ever offensive plexing, if you want an emotional handle on what you want to avoid."

Hans: "I don't understand what you mean by this at all. What extreme, imaginary level of defensive plexing would keep you from wanting to offensively plex?"

It should be easy to imagine an extreme example, but you couldn't imagine any, so I gave you one. It should be easy to see that defensive LP makes chumps out of attackers, but you can't see that, so I gave you as clear as possible a picture of that ever being the case. I strongly feel that phrases like "imagine" and "extreme" and "if you want an emotional handle" are such clear language that it's OK for me to get irritated with you for this dismissal of my whole point as a 'what if' scenario. I'm not concerned about 'what if' scenarios, I'm concerned about the defensive LP as proposed, which, depending on the answers to my questions about it, already offers to reward the defender more than the attacker and therefore makes the attacker a chump and a fool for choosing to contest the system.



You're simply declaring this. But since you don't understand the objections to defensive LP - which are why anyone would think the new system would see plexing degrade to "helping the enemy" - your assurance is weightless.

I agree that Tier 1 income's getting buffed. I like that. That's not the point.



Again, although not quoting this time:

Also, 50% of what LP? The LP your tier 4 faction would get from an offensive plex, or the LP that the enemy's teir 1 faction would get, or the base tier 2 LP?

Let's say it's the enemy's tier of LP that you get 50% of. If the enemy's in a minor plex in a 50% contested system, expecting to earn 5000 LP, can you hide in a major stronghold and make 50% (tier 1) * 50% (system contested) * 30000 LP = 7500 LP? Getting paid better than your enemy to hide in a plex that's too tough for him instead of chasing him out of the minor?

Where is this supposed to be a "modest stipend"?



I cleaned this up a little bit, but let me clean it up further. Your cleaned-up argument for defensive LP is: defensive LP encourages you to be in systems that the enemy is actively trying to take.

OK, cool. Then it just needs some refinements for only this goal to be achieved:

1. It needs a (high) lower bound as well as an upper bound in which no LP is rewarded at all.

2. Defensive LP should halt when the system becomes vulnerable.

3. Ensure the stipend really is modest but don't have an LP split: everyone on grid gets the same modest LP.

With that, eh, it'll still be exploitable, but it really will have the modest draw that you suggest, and it won't break FW.

By the way, we have 4 years of history (and three months of history) to show that players will defensive plex systems that they care about without a reward. We shouldn't intentionally build a system that relies solely on economic incentives to defensive plex. Defensive LP encourages players to AFK far away from the enemy. Defensive plexing where the enemy isn't is boring and LP won't make it any less boring, just pay people to be bored. Don't be disingenuous: defensive plexing does not affect everyone equally, Amarr's 3 systems are not a chore to defend, this is a buff to whoever's on top.

I see it’s a grumpy night all round tonight.

I agree with Hans to an extent, I will not swap sides due to income, however as a casual player income does impact my ability to PVP, reduced income moves me from PVP to undertaking other activities such as missions. That is time spent not fully participating in Faction Warfare or I choose to subsidise with PLEX sales, which I have done before. I have not had to do either since inferno; I have been out in small ships plexing and PVPing at the same time and I believe that this was the intention of the faction warfare overhaul.

I think it is important when talking about income that this is seen for what it is, a general faction warfare income nerf, yes I believe even for Minmatar.

You see a number of things are being tweaked and most of the Blogs I have seen regarding this do not seem to account for all the current mechanics.

ISK discount in stores is being removed. This is big.

Hubs require more LP and although LP is theoretically more available under the proposals at the moment very little LP is lost to LP bleed as systems are left without upgrades for long periods of time. Hard to judge but I get the feeling that it will leave less LP for cashing out in stores and require more general LP investment maintenance that could be a bit of a chore.

Cap on rewards for plexes in vulnerable systems, this will reduce the number of plexes giving LP. This arguably encourages a faction to bash systems so they can take control and get warzone points but even then it is still one less system full of plexes.

LP Bleed - Is it being reduced by that much? Currently 50% (12,500lp for a Major) if it ends up being 10% of the boosted LP amounts (7,500 lp for a major at level 5) rather than unmodified then it is not if the faction is at a high level. I am curious if it includes the current LP Multipliers at the moment I do not think I have ever seen it tested.

LP Multipliers - we have one now, I think people forget but it caps out at 20% I believe. I have yet to see a comparison of warzone tiers from current mechanics against the proposed that includes this

Income Nerf, It is possibly something that needs to happen, it has been possible to rack up extreme amounts of LP through farming and I would perhaps agree that the difference between Tier 5 being way much too profitable and Tier 1 being worse even than standard LP stores.

I feel the aim is to encourage a number of quite stable systems with others in flux.


Players already have lowsec homes and the stronger upgrades are certainly a step in the right direction, it is good local upgrades that will encourage high upgrade levels to be maintained. I understand CCP want to stay away from warefare link style bonuses but players may need more direct benefits to fully invest. It is possible that if the proposed upgrades here had originally gone live in Inferno that some corps with permanent homes may have taken advantage and you would see some permanently upgraded systems.


I do support LP bleed reduction to give some permanence to upgrades.


I still feel the current mechanics can work and work better than those proposed, I can see that there is a desire to nerf income. With upgrades easier to maintain and being more useful, adjustments in the warzone lp store reductions I feel are more appropriate nerf Tier 5 and boost Tier 1 but use the existing mechanics.


How do you intend to roll these changes out, I feel that if the npc/plex changes can be rolled out earlier than the complete overhaul of warzone mechanics then you may see some improvements without such drastic changes. We were promised iteration, this feels like starting again and I fear it is the last time this will happen.

Pvp may be a reason to be in an underdog militia - or an underdog alliance in null sec. But it is not a reason to plex for that miltiia. You seem to misunderstand that and be under the impression that plexing has much to do with pvp. I can tell you that most amarr don't view it that way. And there isn't really anything in the winter expansion that changes that.

If amarr are at tier 1 after winter they will likely just join caldari. They can get all the pvp advantages from this front and make much more from plexing.

But ok you want to rely on the "pvp opportunities" as a balance. I didn't realize you were that far gone. Do you do faction war for the pvp? Are you going to join amarr? White noise had allot of pvp opportunities didn't they? How are they doing? Are pvpers flocking to them?

Ok so we are left with factional pride and bragging rights in a pve plexing system. Of course, as new people enter the war everyday they don't have any of those things so they will just join the winning team. But I suppose you think the old guard militia will stay forever regardless of how economically foolish it is.





Finally you concede then that you the economic balance under your plan will greatly favor joining the winning side.

You hope that the "pvp opportunities" that the underdog has will compensate for this.

You claim you have 4 years of evidence that pvp opportunities provide a stronger incentive than economic incentives. Please list it out. I gave you evidence for the opposite conclusion.

1)To the extent there were economic incentives to join one or the other militia it was to join minmatar and caldari because the rats in the missions were easier. And well both factions always had greater numbers than thier enemy militias. Coincidence?



However we really never had economic incentives for plexing until inferno. And after inferno we saw nothing but an exodus from the underdog militias and growth in the economically leading militias.

2) Fweddit leaving amarr

3) Moar tears leaving amarr

4) 7th fleet leaving amarr

5) Wolfsbrigade never bothering to plex outside kamela faction war - except perhaps for minmatar.

6) Villore accords leaving gallente for minmatar

7) The actual numbers of people in minmatar militia versus amarr militia.

There are 7 pieces of evidence that economics is a strong motivator as to what militia somone will be in.

Please list your evidence.

Are you really going to use fweddit and moar tears as proof people will buck the tide of economics even though both left amarr due, at least in part, for economic reasons?

Are any minmatar alliances going to join amarr for the pvp opportunities?

You keep claiming this evidence exists. But I think you are the one ignoring data and history and just relying on speculation and perhaps anecdotal/bs stories of individuals.

But please don't let me put words in your mouth. You tell me this evidence.

I agree with this, I don't think that LP for defensive plexing will be necessary if players have a vested interest in maintaining a high WZC tier continuously.

If there needs to be a bonus for defensive plexing then I'd prefer the suggestion for bonus LP in PVP ship kills while in a defensive plex.

I do support timer count back and also a notification system if handled correctly.

This is bizarre. Why in a factional war would your own side shoot you?

I know that many people in FW are attracted to the sovereignty mechanic in FW as a 'them against us' scenario. I know I am. The opposition try and take a system while I try and defend it and vice versa. With this in place you are essentially saying that a plex is no more than any other mission complex in EvE that must be cleared of all rats. It actually destroys the concept of FW. The risk of defensive plexing in a unfit frigate (whatever the f*ck that is given some of the fits on BCs I've seen) is that someone else from the other militia may shoot you!

Just nerf the LP payouts. Reward the behaviour you want to encourage and penalise the behaviour you don't want. If you want to encourage PvP then reward that appropriately. If you want more PvP the you could focus the fighting in a region of the warzone that can only be contested sequentially so that chokepoints are created and more pilots are concentrated in those systems. If you want people to invest in warzone control then by all means reward plexing. But the point is balance. At the moment the situation is totally out of control. FW income should be a combination of plexing, PvP and missioning - not the exclusive realm of one or the other.

Wow, you've caught Cearain in a grave error.

Quantum Cats Syndicate. Formerly of Villore Accords, and the only member of it I've ever heard of before. Famously switched to Minmatar while remaining Gallente so that they could receive Minmatar LP.



Don't be absurd. Why would only Amarr need special tools to help them organize? Why would only Amarr be especially afflicted with infighting?

They don't need anything like that. Just better mechanics, no defensive LP, and either a reasonable rollout or a 2-3 months supply of vodka.

Getting and holding 12 systems has proven to be very difficult against the minmifarm. All the while the underdog plexers will be making a pittiance of lp compared to their enemies.

I think you will find this new system everything will snowball to 2 winning sides. It may take some time for the dust to settle on who the winners will be but after that it will snowball.

Hans refers to our hitting tier 5 as a sort of hail mary pass. He is eliminating that hail mary pass. There will be no potential bright side or payday for the underdog.

You know I have been a fairly vocal proponent of prodding amarr to do plexing - and at least not constantly plex for minmatar.


But with these changes there can be no question the smart players will plex for the winning side. There are no goals that the underdog can hit to make for a good pay day. It will just be a constant grind. But those who grind for the winning sides will make several times the isk.