Assembly Hall

Plus one this.


Proposal:

Give LP for defensive plexing to incentivise people to defend their plexes.

Hi Veshta, nice to see you about.

I have no problem with people risking their ships and making isk, even by turning a button (turning buttons is something I despise to begin with).

The current system seems to reward one while penalising the other. So, while I may get LP from offinsive plexing and taking systems, the opponent doesnt get LP for defending their systems at any stage. So, while I have incentive to get out there and risk my ships, the oppenent doesnt.

I like the occupancy aspect regarding stations and the further tweeks you mentioned are good ideas as well.

I do think however that both sides should be rewarded for turning buttons as an incentive to keep them both active and concerned with occupancy.

If you want to defend your system you should do it by killing the war targets who are running offensive plexes. Not by waiting for the war targets to leave and then running a defensive plex.

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 are 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.

While the spirit of your thinking is sound, there are two major practical problems (the second being far more important than the first) with trying to force people to defend their systems through in-FW-complex PvP:

1. Timezone warfare. If one of the militias winds up with poor timezone coverage (which can happen very easily and quickly if a major participant leaves), then defensive plexing is their only short-term means of holding space until they can restore their timezone coverage.
2. Catching people who don't want to slug it out inside the plex and making them pay. This is nearly impossible with a minor unless someone is not paying attention to their directional scanner, as covert cloaked vessels cannot enter minor complexes. Even for the larger plexes (which do allow covert cloaked ships), trying to ambush someone turning a plex is more difficult than it looks due to the decloak hazard posed by the acceleration gate+landing beacon. Obviously, you shouldn't be able to turn a plex while cloaked, but not being able to practically use a warpgate without dropping one's cloak in a vessel that is otherwise capable of warping while cloaked is silly, no?

In principle,

• Offensive plexing should be rewarded more than defensive plexing because offensive plexing drives conflict. (Defensive plexing is a reaction to offensive plexing.)
• Plexes (both offensive and defensive) should be run most efficiently by the appropriately sized ship.
• Plex mechanics should reward those looking for kills, not reward those looking to run.

Any plexing mechanic CCP comes up with should follow the principles listed above.

Potential Solutions:

• (Much) higher LP rewards for offensive plexing.
• Timer slows down if appropriately sized ship is not running the button. Ex: If frigate is on timer of L4 plex, then plex timer should slow down by a factor of eight.
• Timer move toward baseline if no ship is close to button. This enables players interested in pvp to run off those not interested in pvp and still be successful. (This has been discussed extensively elsewhere).

Timers that reset to 0 if the plexer is driven away should go a long way toward more fights.

(As a short intermediate fix, after that special defense plexes (where the defender needs to kill stuff and can get lp) and the like for contested systems are IMO the way to go)

Some interesting suggestions.

My basic thought on this is to have LP for both offensive and defensive.

I'd slightly reduce the amount of LP for offensive plexing or remove the ability to afk plex entirely. Then I'd give LP for defensive plexing but less LP for defensive than offensive.

Im not saying this is an end all solution either. It needs some more thought and tweeking even after that.

The situation we have right now benefits and rewards the winner and punishes the loser.

On the issue of timezone warfare, that has always been a part of eve anywhere you go. Im not sure how to resolve that or if you can. Also, I think people should be forced to slug it out. Thats the name of the game.

I also think that something needs to be done about people not taking vulnerable systems. The 25 systems of ours that our opponent has vulnerable, half of which have been so for over a month now.

The incentive is that you get to keep your system. Is that not reason enough?