These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Interested in the state of Faction Warfare? Listen to our recent Round Table discussion....

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#81 - 2012-07-12 14:59:00 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


The reason the Minmatar are hovering around Kamela is they like the idea of taking down your last staging systems. Strategically that's the way to win the war. Kourm, Huola etc are vital forward bases for putting pressure on your staging systems. If you wanted to draw minmatar attention away from missioning then you need to organize a serious threat against Kourm that risks locking people out of their ships and equipment in the stations there.



This completely dances around what I was saying. Tearing down your upgrades should be a 'credible' threat. It isn't as the game works right now. In the podcast it was suggested that the LP payout be affected by the tier system rather then the LP store be determined by it. That means at tier 5 you would make 40k LP for running a minor. It also has other nice effects. There is no 'spiking.' We tear you down to level 3 and you feel it immediately. Less LP for what you do.

You also point to tech moons and nullsec and ask why FW should be addressed if that's messed up. My daughter does the same strategy in real life. So let me address you in the same way as I would a 9 year old using the oldest crap in the book.

'We're not talking about Johnny Goon. We're talking about you.'

There should be some real hand-wringing about how the LP you earn is spent. There is none. If we got rid of mission running what would that do? If we paid plexing Caldari plexes with Gallente LP what would that do? I personally wouldn't mind seeing LP for defensive plexing at that point in time. Most of the winning side's isk would be made during the conquest. Once it is over or almost over - the gravy train would dry up. People would drift off. The losing team could start to push. The winning team would have to rely on it's upgraded systems to make isk. Ideas like this are how you design a closed system.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#82 - 2012-07-12 15:05:49 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Bengal Bob wrote:
Yuri Intaki wrote:
Cearain wrote:
If you are trolling, I admit I am biting. I am very curious what the loophole is. I am aware of some things that some might consider a loophole. But I don't think they are anything that big of a deal.


Not trolling, just admitting there is a massive screw up which CCP has not spotted (surprising, eh?) and which might result in last shreds of FW going down the s.itters.


If you are aware of any exploits or loopholes you have a responsibility to report it to CCP.
If they still do nothing, then post details on the forums and ask publicly for them to deal with it.

Just sitting around claiming Gallente and Minmatar are probably using it because it exists is silly.


I'm guessing they are murkily referring to the fact that Gallente loyalists in the Minmatar can go and plex Caldari systems in Black Rise and get paid minmatar LPs (good loyalty point store) for opposing territorial control there.

By the same measure Amarr loyalists could join the Caldari and stay in Bleaks / Metropolis and get paid good Caldari LP's for plexing against minmatar systems.

In a way the "massive screw up" is probably that the FW system we have now means its more sensible for a losing side to swap sides to their winning ally and continue plexing in the same space so they get more valuable LP points for their labour.

In the example above say an Amarrian corp skips to the Caldari and plexes down 4 minors in Arzad. They are getting 16x more LP value for doing the same thing that a loyalist Amarrian corp that stayed Amarrian would get for doing 4 minors in Lantorn. (tier 4 caldari/ tier 1 amarr)



I doubt this is what they mean. Its not really a "screw up." I think its fine to work like that. If they leave caldari space the gallente will gain ground on them. And their caldari lp will not be worth as much. If they are in minmatar space making progress they may want to flip over to amarr becasue the amarr lp will be worth allot after they start massively flipping systems.

The reason I am glad we switched over to caldari is because amarr 1)kept flipping systems as soon as they could allowing the minmatar to flip them back immediately making tons of isk 2) we were mainly doing plexing in small localized areas that were easy for the minmatar blob to sit in and plex up again and 3) kept wasting too much time defensive plexing which again only feeds minmatar.

If we would have taken all the plexing time we spent on defensive plexing and instead only did offensive plexing throughout the zone I think the space would be allot more contested and amarr would be closer to hitting tier five. But I do agree that involves some speculation on my part, and I do agree minmatar probably would have gotten a medal.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#83 - 2012-07-12 15:12:05 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
[quote=Jade Constantine]

The reason the Minmatar are hovering around Kamela is they like the idea of taking down your last staging systems. Strategically that's the way to win the war. Kourm, Huola etc are vital forward bases for putting pressure on your staging systems. If you wanted to draw minmatar attention away from missioning then you need to organize a serious threat against Kourm that risks locking people out of their ships and equipment in the stations there.




Bad advice from our enemy. Not surprising. Big smile

I don't blame you for trying though.

If you continue to mission while we plex all your back water systems you will soon find you either have to do a bunch of defensive plexing for no lp or you will find we will be striking at tier 5.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#84 - 2012-07-12 15:13:54 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
[ This completely dances around what I was saying. Tearing down your upgrades should be a 'credible' threat. It isn't as the game works right now. In the podcast it was suggested that the LP payout be affected by the tier system rather then the LP store be determined by it. That means at tier 5 you would make 40k LP for running a minor. It also has other nice effects. There is no 'spiking.' We tear you down to level 3 and you feel it immediately. Less LP for what you do.


Well I think its a suggestion that has some merit. I'd also like the upgrades to systems to be more interesting in and of themselves so they were worth defending (rather than simply being a short term cashout thing) at the moment the upgrades are really boring and it doesn't make much actual difference if a system you stage out of is 5 or zero. Somebody suggested some kind of 0.0 style rat farming upgrades as a throwaway comment in some thread - but at least that would give people a reason to want to sustain their tier outside of cashout time.

Zarnak Wulf wrote:
You also point to tech moons and nullsec and ask why FW should be addressed if that's messed up. My daughter does the same strategy in real life. So let me address you in the same way as I would a 9 year old using the oldest crap in the book. 'We're not talking about Johnny Goon. We're talking about you.'


Well say I've got two daughters (9 and 17).. one of them is pouring cornflakes into my shoes and the other one is using my credit card to order $1000 pants on the internet. I know which critical issue I'm going to prioritize the resolution of!

The thing I was addressing really was this "shock horror FW is making billionaires!" line of tabloid argumentation that Poetic was producing in his blog. I think that's akin to RL tabloid scare stories about benefit cheats and low level working joe graft while ignoring the corruption of our politicians and financial systems. Its a pretty crude form of manipulation.

Zarnak Wulf wrote:
There should be some real hand-wringing about how the LP you earn is spent. There is none. If we got rid of mission running what would that do? If we paid plexing Caldari plexes with Gallente LP what would that do? I personally wouldn't mind seeing LP for defensive plexing at that point in time. Most of the winning side's isk would be made during the conquest. Once it is over or almost over - the gravy train would dry up. People would drift off. The losing team could start to push. The winning team would have to rely on it's upgraded systems to make isk. Ideas like this are how you design a closed system.


Well I appreciate the intention to theorycraft solutions - its much better than simply moaning about things.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
AndromacheDarkstar
Integrated Insterstellar Holdings
#85 - 2012-07-12 15:17:33 UTC
Just finished listening to the podcast, finally something in size to compete with lost in eve. Overall it was pretty interesting to listen to all you guys giving us your thoughts on the current state of affairs. Being one of those thats fairly new to FW im still wide eyed but i can see some of the flaws in the way things work.

First off i have to say that FW is the most fun anyone i know has ever had in eve, lots of fights and lots of good people generally getting on well and helping eachother out. I do have a problem with the stance allot of you took towards the idea of "Farming", as far as i can tell plexing is one of if not the most important part of the FW system as it stands and i think more people are actually playing the system as its intended rather than "farming", it seemed like you ignored those people and thats doing them a diservice.

Some great ideas did come up, one of the best was changing the bonus from lower LP prices in stores to altering the LP made from the various FW activites, as far as i can tell this would solve the Issue of the LP i have so far earnt not being that usefull, fights are great but to fight you need ships and its damn hard to make any isk in FW. I come from the amarr side of things and although we are losing and deserve to be in a worse position Minnie pilots are going to find themselves fresh out of targets one day as everyones isk dries up.

The big discussion about plexing itself was also interesting, i like plexing as it is it does provide some fights and isnt that boring, i was wondering if it would be better if the buttons went down quicker, gave less of an infulence and provided less LP to make things a bit mroe interesting.

Other idea i had while listening was to have a warp out gate from PLEX sites. You cant warp out any other way than through the gate, im pretty sure this would end up forcing more PVP and making the risk allot greater for people trying to plex all day.

Last but not least i do also think its important to change over the way defensive plexing works ASAP, as you guys said there is just no reason to D PLEX, as far as i can see the only way to change this is to introduce an LP reward.

Andro
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#86 - 2012-07-12 15:51:36 UTC
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:
Just finished listening to the podcast, finally something in size to compete with lost in eve. Overall it was pretty interesting to listen to all you guys giving us your thoughts on the current state of affairs. Being one of those thats fairly new to FW im still wide eyed but i can see some of the flaws in the way things work.

First off i have to say that FW is the most fun anyone i know has ever had in eve, lots of fights and lots of good people generally getting on well and helping eachother out. I do have a problem with the stance allot of you took towards the idea of "Farming", as far as i can tell plexing is one of if not the most important part of the FW system as it stands and i think more people are actually playing the system as its intended rather than "farming", it seemed like you ignored those people and thats doing them a diservice.

Some great ideas did come up, one of the best was changing the bonus from lower LP prices in stores to altering the LP made from the various FW activites, as far as i can tell this would solve the Issue of the LP i have so far earnt not being that usefull, fights are great but to fight you need ships and its damn hard to make any isk in FW. I come from the amarr side of things and although we are losing and deserve to be in a worse position Minnie pilots are going to find themselves fresh out of targets one day as everyones isk dries up.

The big discussion about plexing itself was also interesting, i like plexing as it is it does provide some fights and isnt that boring, i was wondering if it would be better if the buttons went down quicker, gave less of an infulence and provided less LP to make things a bit mroe interesting.

Other idea i had while listening was to have a warp out gate from PLEX sites. You cant warp out any other way than through the gate, im pretty sure this would end up forcing more PVP and making the risk allot greater for people trying to plex all day.

Last but not least i do also think its important to change over the way defensive plexing works ASAP, as you guys said there is just no reason to D PLEX, as far as i can see the only way to change this is to introduce an LP reward.

Andro



I would rather ccp removed the ability to defensive plex altogether rather than boost it. If you want to protect a system you should have to get out there an prevent the offensive plexers from capturing a plex in the first place - in other words through pvp. The idea that you can just let them run a plex and then wait until all the wartargets leave so you can run the defensive plex is terrible. The winning side is the side that has more time to kill as opposed to the side that is better at pvp.

But your other ideas are pretty good. I like the idea of shorter timers on plexes. Maybe all of them cut to 2/3s. I would leave the same amount of vp going to flipping the system as I would prefer a shorter flip time. But if people want the shorter flip time that is fine.

The thing is I will often run a plex in a system with allot of wartargets hoping to get a fight. And then when the timer has about 7 minutes left I see they all leave system. Well the question is do I sit on that button or go look for pvp? I usually go look for pvp. If the plex timers were shorter I would probably at least finish the plex.

However if ccp ever gives us a notification when plexes are taken I would like the timers to remain about the same amount of time. So people will have time to react to the notification. (see my sig if you don't know what I am talking about with notifications)

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
AndromacheDarkstar
Integrated Insterstellar Holdings
#87 - 2012-07-12 16:02:17 UTC  |  Edited by: AndromacheDarkstar
"I would rather ccp removed the ability to defensive plex altogether rather than boost it. If you want to protect a system you should have to get out there an prevent the offensive plexers from capturing a plex in the first place - in other words through pvp. The idea that you can just let them run a plex and then wait until all the wartargets leave so you can run the defensive plex is terrible. The winning side is the side that has more time to kill as opposed to the side that is better at pvp.

But your other ideas are pretty good. I like the idea of shorter timers on plexes. Maybe all of them cut to 2/3s. I would leave the same amount of vp going to flipping the system as I would prefer a shorter flip time. But if people want the shorter flip time that is fine.

The thing is I will often run a plex in a system with allot of wartargets hoping to get a fight. And then when the timer has about 7 minutes left I see they all leave system. Well the question is do I sit on that button or go look for pvp? I usually go look for pvp. If the plex timers were shorter I would probably at least finish the plex.

However if ccp ever gives us a notification when plexes are taken I would like the timers to remain about the same amount of time. So people will have time to react to the notification. (see my sig if you don't know what I am talking about with notifications) "

You make a really good point about defensive plexing, i hadnt even considered that as an idea but that would defiantely force people to be more active in PVP, i do wonder if it would make it too hard to be able to defend a system though. Im with you on the leaving the button situation and i think shorter times would help that along allot.

I read your ideas about the notifications and im not 100% convinced there, maybe it would be better if a notification is up on the system control viewer to to show you what sites are up although we kind of already have that with the overview.

With regards ot NPCS i dont view them as too much of a problem, maybe have htem leave if an opposing player pulls into the plex (not sure how difficult this is to implememnt). Also if your introducing the outgate idea i propsed then your gonig to get allot more pvp anyway and so people wpuld be better prepared for it and will have got rid of or moved out of the way of NPCS before the fight starts . If you remove NPCs completely it will make plexing far too simple.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#88 - 2012-07-12 16:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:
"I would rather ccp removed the ability to defensive plex altogether rather than boost it. If you want to protect a system you should have to get out there an prevent the offensive plexers from capturing a plex in the first place - in other words through pvp. The idea that you can just let them run a plex and then wait until all the wartargets leave so you can run the defensive plex is terrible. The winning side is the side that has more time to kill as opposed to the side that is better at pvp.

But your other ideas are pretty good. I like the idea of shorter timers on plexes. Maybe all of them cut to 2/3s. I would leave the same amount of vp going to flipping the system as I would prefer a shorter flip time. But if people want the shorter flip time that is fine.

The thing is I will often run a plex in a system with allot of wartargets hoping to get a fight. And then when the timer has about 7 minutes left I see they all leave system. Well the question is do I sit on that button or go look for pvp? I usually go look for pvp. If the plex timers were shorter I would probably at least finish the plex.

However if ccp ever gives us a notification when plexes are taken I would like the timers to remain about the same amount of time. So people will have time to react to the notification. (see my sig if you don't know what I am talking about with notifications) "
AndromacheDarkstar wrote:

You make a really good point about defensive plexing, i hadnt even considered that as an idea but that would defiantely force people to be more active in PVP, i do wonder if it would make it too hard to be able to defend a system though. .. .
.


Yes it would make it too hard to defend a system. But that is what we want. We want it to be too hard for one faction to remain dominant. If that continues everyone will just join the winning side as we see happening already. The goal would be to hold the systems as long as possible though pvp fighting in plexes. Keeping your lp store favorable for a longer period of time and preventing the other side from cashing out for longer. But yeah ultimately the war should sway from one side to the other.

AndromacheDarkstar wrote:

I read your ideas about the notifications and im not 100% convinced there, maybe it would be better if a notification is up on the system control viewer to to show you what sites are up although we kind of already have that with the overview. .


I'm not sure what you are refering to. But when I enter a plex I doubt most of the enemy militia knows I am there. In fact I doubt most of the people in local who may be docked up docked up even know I am attacking their military complex.

I think this is why plexing is currently best done through pve. Its also why its hard to defend a system. If we had a notificiation system would could defend the system though pvp.

Ultimate question is whether ccp wants to make sov control a pvp mechanic or a pve/alt mechanic. If they want pvp they would notify us of plexes being taken by the enemy so we can fight for them. If they want it to remain pve they will just give lp or other boosts to defensive plexing. That way people can wait for offensive plexers to capture the plex and go plex it after all the wartargets leave.

AndromacheDarkstar wrote:

With regards to NPCS i dont view them as too much of a problem, maybe have htem leave if an opposing player pulls into the plex (not sure how difficult this is to implememnt). Also if your introducing the outgate idea i propsed then your gonig to get allot more pvp anyway and so people wpuld be better prepared for it and will have got rid of or moved out of the way of NPCS before the fight starts . If you remove NPCs completely it will make plexing far too simple.


The minor plexes are not too bad. But the mediums and major plexes amarr faced used to be a real pain. I haven't done the medium or major ones since they supposedly removed ewar so I am not sure what they are like. I am not even sure they did remove the ewar. I know I was getting target painted in a minor plex. The strength of the npcs varies pretty dramatically depending on which militia you are fighting for.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#89 - 2012-07-12 16:24:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuri Intaki
Jade Constantine wrote:
I've no idea to be honest on the IHUB issue. But I do know its still apparently possible to plex (and get paid for plexing) when a system is in vulnerable state so I guess it wouldn't make much actual difference to the "strategy".

Anyway this is what I imagine Damar's alt is going on about.


No but ultimately it does not matter. Ushra K'han member (instead of usual TLF farmers) was spotted plexing in our space and smacking in local. So I am fairly convinced the Matar farming assault has begun. Unfortunately this leaves no option but to hasten Operation "s.it the sandbox" with all possible means to make sure we are not drowned by the red carebears coming over from Heimatar.

And should it go as planned and things go belly-up for you (success is after all never guaranteed), then remember that you forced us to do it with your pve machine.
San Severina
One Point 0
#90 - 2012-07-15 13:05:24 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
You all sound like nerds. just saying...


you think?
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#91 - 2012-07-15 15:56:04 UTC
San Severina wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
You all sound like nerds. just saying...


you think?


Re Re: Quoting. Justing saying...

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Kane Smirnoff
Logos Corp
#92 - 2012-07-15 16:50:06 UTC
Does anybody remember the snowball launchers? Those were cool weren't they? However CCP 'melted' all the snowballs becuase of all the complaints of people firing back on a snowballer and getting concorded.

My point is the more you complain and threaten to rage quit over a new feature that CCP implements that isn't perfection. The more likely they will think twice about putting a whole bunch of effort into making/improving features for the players...
Juan Rayo
Justified Chaos
#93 - 2012-07-15 18:50:25 UTC
Good ideas on that podcast. My notes:

1. Even at Tier 1, we should be at pre-inferno store prices or close to it. Highsec carebearing shouldn´t give better rewards than FW stores. This also keeps the “affordable” for newbies part of faction warfare. Current mechanics run newbies OUT of losing factions or at the very least scare them off from joining the militia they like.

Vets should remember that having FW stagnate, fighting the same people over and over again for 5 years is not the most exciting thing. Having newbies coming into the game and into FW should be considered a good thing. Any kind of solution to the “isk/lp” discussion should take that into account.

2. People should join a faction not because isk making is easy road. That only encourages pve.

3. Timer in plexes should reset if the guy running it abandons the plex. Encourages actually having to fight for the plex.

4. Rats are fine, get off the rats. Way people talk about them it´s like they are the most important thing in the theater. ECM is gone so let´s give it a time and see what happens.

5. Missions are almost worthless atm unless you have t4 store prices. Better rewards for missions could be considered. They have to be worked on though, because a lot of them are almost risk free (the ones that can be done in Stealth bombers).

6. I kind of liked the hauler instead of button idea. Sort of a “moving timer”. Doesn´t change much but sounds nifty as dressing.

7. LP for defensive plexing. Why not exactly? Because it´s going to be farmed? Because it´s a reward for doing nothing but orbiting a button for 30mins? Well people farm offensive plexing already to great extent, farmers will farm. And defensive plexing it´s not really risk free either, you can always get attacked by enemy gangs. Just make it less rewarding than offensive so that you keep people more interested in offensive plexing. Also, defensive plexing can put LP into the system upgrade. Also goes towards being newbie friendly.

8. System upgrades also need to be iterated on. Bonuses for system occupancy should have more of a practical use.

9. I don´t think “alt army” is causing the system occupancy flips or dominance. Sure, there is a lot of that, but at least in Gallente/caldari theater, the Caldari say they have been plexing with a purpose and a strategy and I don´t have any reason not to believe them. As I said, farmers will farm. They do it all over Eve in every area of space.
Cromwell Savage
The Screaming Seagulls
#94 - 2012-07-15 19:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Cromwell Savage
Juan Rayo wrote:
Good points...


I agree with pretty much what you said except for rats/alts in plexes.

For me, as someone who was never in favor of the station docking denial, I have massive issues with plexing controling sov in it's current form. Here's why:

There is absolutely no question that plexing is one of the most borked up mechanics in all of Eve. To have such a massively flawed and imbalanced mechanic have such a massive and direct impact on system staging (docking) is ridiculous to me. If it weren't for station docking, I wouldn't care one bit about them. But as it is, my two main beefs are rats and noob-toon afk alts...

First, the rats - they are far from fine imho. No 1-week-old toon should ever be able to afk run a plex - regardless of faction - ever. So, one of two ways to fix that. Either retool rat aggro/damage to prevent a single ship from running the plex without at least killing a good portion of the rats (i.e. frig for minor, cruiser for med, bc for major restricted...) or make it so all rats have to be killed in addition to the timer being run down. Do one or the other and you solve the noob-toon afk plexer issue.

Which leads me into the second part, that being the afk noob-toon farmer to begin with. Usually, I would care less about anyone farming LP. When it was missions, I didn't care one single bit. But here's the difference, plexing (unlike missions) does affect sov which now affects station docking. And station docking affects PvP (i.e. system staging). The beauty of pre-inferno stations was a small FW corp could venture into lo-sec and grow. Now, smaller corps do not have that option on their own - or at least without the real risk of quickly losing that system if they don't have EU and US coverage. Therefore, the "small" corp has two options if they don't want FW to turn into a full time job to protect docking rights.....either group up in a "major" system or just live in hi-sec. And for me, FW is not about living in hi-sec. FW should encourage spreading out around lo-sec. Not grouping into "super systems" and/or hi-sec.... But that's me...

For me, I don't care too much about LP. It's great and it augments my normal income, but my major issue with this latest "update" centers around station access. And with station access comes plexing.... Plexing must be fixed, otherwise, completely drop this derp idea of station lockout...

Not so ninja edit - PS:

As long as plexes control sov which control docking...CCP, you also need to fix the issue where you can contest a system past vulnerable (i.e. plexes keep stacking) yet you can't do the same thing to a stable system. Let the plex still give LP - I don't care - but if we can't stack plexes past stable then you shouldn't also be able to stack past vulnerable... Yay...more plexing win... o.0
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#95 - 2012-07-15 21:34:53 UTC
Juan Rayo wrote:
7. LP for defensive plexing. Why not exactly? Because it´s going to be farmed? Because it´s a reward for doing nothing but orbiting a button for 30mins? Well people farm offensive plexing already to great extent, farmers will farm. And defensive plexing it´s not really risk free either, you can always get attacked by enemy gangs. Just make it less rewarding than offensive so that you keep people more interested in offensive plexing. Also, defensive plexing can put LP into the system upgrade. Also goes towards being newbie friendly.




There are many many good reasons not to have lp for defensive plexing.

As it is right now it is unclear that the amarr will ever be able to make a comeback under the current mechanics. If ccp changes the rules to help minmatar defensive plex their system then our slim hopes get 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
Bezerk'ah Vulkan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#96 - 2012-07-15 22:48:34 UTC
Also finnished listening...

Missions should be tweaked to have impact in warzone.

Also one of the best ideas thrown out there that isnt really tied to FW mechanics is that upgraded systems affect the quantity of sec status gained by rats killed in that system...PLEASE!
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2012-07-15 23:28:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Andre Vauban
Cearain wrote:

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.



This is a horrible idea. If I want to take a system, I just need to find the hour or two a day where you don't have presence in the system and run a few plexs then. It will take a long time, but it makes defense impossible. You could totally dominate a system for 20 hours a day and still loose it because you didn't cover two hours a day.

Personally, I like the no lp for defensive plexing, but you get I hub upgrade lp deposited for running defensive plexs. They should also set like a 48 hour timer once a system goes vulnerable. If it isn't captured it should go back to 0 percent contested. The systems a faction started with that have been lost should also slowly contest like 5% a day to help the losing side.

.
Aradus Gunnell
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2012-07-16 13:12:25 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:



Personally, I like the no lp for defensive plexing, but you get I hub upgrade lp deposited for running defensive plexs. They should also set like a 48 hour timer once a system goes vulnerable. If it isn't captured it should go back to 0 percent contested. The systems a faction started with that have been lost should also slowly contest like 5% a day to help the losing side.



This may have some merit.

SPENCE from TEN EVEning News! DUST514 & EVE Online news every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday!

We Pay Isk for good stories!  Contact me via eve mail, here on the forums, or at www.tacticalentertainment.tv
BolsterBomb
Perkone
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-07-16 13:55:45 UTC
I am sure I am in the minority but I like the way plexing and the current Sov mechanics work. I do however not like how D-plexing works, and yes I sometimes take an inty out and simply speed tank a plex but the majority of the time I am in a hookbill or CNI fully fitted for pvp. I also kill most of the rats probably about 75% of the time since I cant fight anything that comes in with them on me.


Someone already suggested that you should tie War Zone Control to the amount of LP gained instead of the other way around. I like this notion as it would encourage the D-plex , however I do not think it will create anything different then we have now.

People that plex (like myself) do it for ISK reasons as well as the War Zone control. The problem is the "freedom" that FW gives players creates a group that could care less about plexing and doesnt need the LP as income.

The fundamental problem you have is very simple:

You have people in FW that do not care about the mechanics of Sov and anything you will or could do still will not get them involved.

I wrote an extensive proposition to a couple people this weekend outlining this problem. In FW you have a mix of people like me that care about Sov and pushing WZ control, and then lots others that just want "free" kills. FW was a system of free kills but now it is indeed 0.0 light. I like it because now their are goals and objectives rather then log in and kill people only.

You cant feasibly mix the two concepts and come up with a good system. Its counter intuitive, and this is why I like the current system as is except for D-Plexing and I do not have a feasible idea that would solve this.


TLDR: Mixing people that want free kills with people that play FW for the sov mechanics will never mix well (especially without a true alliance command structure)

I

Brig General of The Caldari State

"Don" Bolsterbomb

Traitor and Ex Luminaire General of The Gallente Federation
Aradus Gunnell
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2012-07-16 13:59:08 UTC
BolsterBomb wrote:
I am sure I am in the minority but I like the way plexing and the current Sov mechanics work. I do however not like how D-plexing works, and yes I sometimes take an inty out and simply speed tank a plex but the majority of the time I am in a hookbill or CNI fully fitted for pvp. I also kill most of the rats probably about 75% of the time since I cant fight anything that comes in with them on me.


Someone already suggested that you should tie War Zone Control to the amount of LP gained instead of the other way around. I like this notion as it would encourage the D-plex , however I do not think it will create anything different then we have now.

People that plex (like myself) do it for ISK reasons as well as the War Zone control. The problem is the "freedom" that FW gives players creates a group that could care less about plexing and doesnt need the LP as income.

The fundamental problem you have is very simple:

You have people in FW that do not care about the mechanics of Sov and anything you will or could do still will not get them involved.

I wrote an extensive proposition to a couple people this weekend outlining this problem. In FW you have a mix of people like me that care about Sov and pushing WZ control, and then lots others that just want "free" kills. FW was a system of free kills but now it is indeed 0.0 light. I like it because now their are goals and objectives rather then log in and kill people only.

You cant feasibly mix the two concepts and come up with a good system. Its counter intuitive, and this is why I like the current system as is except for D-Plexing and I do not have a feasible idea that would solve this.


TLDR: Mixing people that want free kills with people that play FW for the sov mechanics will never mix well (especially without a true alliance command structure)

I



Also good stuff. So good to see people discussing this topic!

Bolster, we're gonna save you a chair on the next FW roundtable :P

SPENCE from TEN EVEning News! DUST514 & EVE Online news every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday!

We Pay Isk for good stories!  Contact me via eve mail, here on the forums, or at www.tacticalentertainment.tv