Wormholes

But jack even null that didn't see a decent war in years, things changed completely, blues switched sides and we have a big ass war over a small change. Maybe that is what we need. Drivers dont have to be goo, it was just suggested, if you have other ideas or suggestions go ahead and post them. Btw your tutorial on how to do sites (that was amazing) was a significant pvp driver in and by itself. That is the kind of thing I am talking about. Yes yours was player created, but I still think there is no harm and only benefit out of CCP putting in some pvp drivers other than just "it's fun". We really do lack them in wh space (saying we lack pvp drivers doesn't mean there is a lack of pvp)

There was me closing down 0ccupational Hazzard. Don't forget that one gawd dammit!!!

Dude... no one doesnt want more content... it's soooo not the point here....

Poor Greyscale, what he lacks in stature he makes up for in raw awesomeness.


Well, to bring up a recurring theme thats been suggested constantly for the last 4 years. Would be nice if sleepers were a bit more territorial.

Sleepers on WHs the same as k-space gets rats on gates - if people want to kill them they have to linger on the wormhole. If people want to sit on the wormhole or be in a slow aligning ship they're taking additional risk. (yep, you better scout that orca with a combat party)

Inactive systems getting a sleeper "build up", where they get pretty miffed at these insubordinate capsuleers who are occupying their space. - Well if you want your towers to survive, you're going to have to leave the shields, and if your tower doesn't survive, that's a nice pinata for passers through. (also see fixing SMA drops)

There are plenty motives:
- Keeping the w-space market healthy by ensuring that new T3s need to be built/bought.
- Keeping carebears out (or teaching them a lesson about the dangers of w-space) to ensure the ‘risk vs reward’ aspect of w-space is kept alive
- If you don’t pvp, you will be known as weak and have a higher chance of eviction or repeated strikes to your operations
- It keeps your alliance/corp active. Inactivity = Death
- It keeps your alliance/corp from turning into carebears, because w-space bearing is so tempting.
- It’s fun
If you don’t acknowledge or understand these motives, I urge you and your pack to start learning about them.

I find it hard to follow your logic. The threat of losing your territory and assets is as big (if not bigger) than it is in nullsec. If you run into a gang and they don't want to PVP, punish them by eviction or popping all their POCO’s and forms of sabotage. It’s really hard to recover from eviction as a alliance (a bit like theft). You also lose the ability to make ISK by farming your system(s). That should be a large enough incentive for bears to fight. And if they DO return to w-space, they would be very foolish to try the neutral approach a second time.
I'd like to see it changed of course, but the SMA bug and self-destructing assets don't really matter, since evictions shouldn't be a matter of profitability, but a matter of politics, w-space pvp attitude and pumping alliance morale (read: activity). There's plenty of profits to be had on the PVE side anyway.

Nobody is limiting anyone to live in w-space and solely fight in w-space. Take some fights in null/low as well (like VOC is doing, for example). That aside, I do believe there’s a bit more to w-space pvp than logofskis and orchestrated fights. Even the EVE uni guys understand that! Evictions are a healthy thing, as explained above. If you won’t take fights, you don’t deserve the rewards from w-space. Same as null and lowsec risk vs reward, but more harsh. If you follow that rule, in time, you’ll see that more and more w-entities will take the fights that are presented to them.

I find that a good idea.

So to sum it up: If you want more proper fights, then everyone should follow the "no PVP means eviction for you!" rule.

Heeeey NOHO, didn't i see you a while back ago...

Currently i have been in a c5/c5 for a short time, a c4/c3 for a bit longer, and a c2 for a lot longer. So not as much experience as others but here is my 2 isk...

A lot of people confuse PVP with ganking. Killing those who most likely cant kill you back (aka killing a 10 man t3 gang with your 30 man t3 gang, killing that dual drake set-up doing em c2 sites, or even killing a couple of BS rolling a hole) is more PVE than it is PVP, suuuuure there is a hunting factor, but it isnt so much more different than faction spawn, except these can but mainly dont have scouts :P.

PVP has risk. It is where 2 entities have a chance at winning a combat engagement with each other. Adding more sites or lucrative rewards isnt going to encourage fights, it will encourage ganks. You dont protect your assets with a small group or equal numbers, you protect your assets with 10 times the numbers and enough jammers to jam every member of test 2 times over.

I like the idea of POS bashing and evicting, but it is boring, no matter how many dreads you throw at it... and until ccp fixes that whole loot not dropping (you know, the one that isnt a bug >.>) it is not lucrative.

Another thing is that someone brought up the current war with Test Alliance and CFC, that isnt content generated. Sure people use fighting on hubs and POSs as an excuse to fight, but the war is being driven by the want of fights (edit: for anyone but goons at least :P).

Back to the point, PvP (not ganks) is driven by the want of fights, not be resources. Resource fights as mentioned above only benefit those with the numbers and tech to compete with the biggest of the big constantly. My suggestion for generation content is to either A) bait better and get more ganks in, or B) start doing PvP, not "farming" other players...

(this post contains numerous grammatical errors, most of which i fully support)

Back on topic

It would be nice to have PVP drivers but to be honest it would be very difficult to 'force' people out to fight. Many WH corps will not fight when you attack their POS? What else is there that would have them come out? Trying to force people to fight will probably end up ruining WH more than helping.

I'm trying to figure out what CCP could add to induce some more PVP. Some peeps are not going to fight no matter what you do. But for the others, what might be added? You have to be careful that whatever it is doesn't give the defenders too much of an advantage (they already have several advantages) but is worth fighting for in the first place.

I find it kind of funny seeing people say things like "CCP should add something to promote pvp in wormholes." You are the person who should be promoting pvp in wormholes. Go out and get kills.

I still don't understand which other conflict drivers are necessary, there are so many wormholes, so much space and so little people that there simply isn't anything worth fighting over. If anything, I believe the mechanics should be slightly altered to promote conflict or some new tools could be looked at, two extreme examples that I ran across and were looking attractive to a degree:
- Example: (you can only warp to a wormhole within 7.5km) meaning that you'd always have to paddle the last 2000m on your own. It's not a huge change for most ships, but if you intend to get your freighter out, you better make sure you can defend it for those 30 seconds - or have someone bumping it closer.
- Example: (somewhere on failheap challenge - I believe - was a high-quality-suggestion (I'm not mocking it, I was fascinated positively) of anomalies with high value taking place in 'warp bubbles', so 100s of kilometers (as I understood) of non-warpable space, with juicy stuff in the middle and people landing on the edges, and ofc LeHolyMotherOfAsteroids in the direct middle) No matter how you look at it, a warp disruption field with luxurious pve in the middle would be the ultimate pvp-magnet. As people sitting inside would have no means to escape by just pressing warp, and agressors just being unable to warp in their big baddieships to 0, it would do a lot to fix a lack of pvp-oppurtunities. I actually think the original author had a rather different concept than I'm trying to patch together, but the direction - I hope - survived.

Just whatever it is, controlling w-space should always imply that you are the somehow superior force regarding pvp in your location, and that you have better intel/logistics. Tagging it is senseless, and any kind of SOV is just stupid. You don't control it because the wormhole is tagged with your name, you control it because you deny other people access over and over.

Tech-3-rebalance would go a long way aswell, 'best' ships are not good for pvp :p