These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction Warfare farming has to end - we want war instead of the Cloak & Stabs -game

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amber Kurvora
#381 - 2013-12-13 15:35:55 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Burtakus wrote:

Your entire argument against our concern is you saying we have no valid concern. By that logic I can shoot down nearly anyone's concern regardless of what it is.

The one arguing that game mechanics need to be changed is the one who needs to prove there's an issue. "Because I say so" is in no way a valid reason to redesign low sec's primary unique mechanic.



It worked for the Kings and Queens of days gone by, why wouldn't it work for someone throwing a forum tantrum? ;)


My opinion of FW farmers is they're annoying as sin. When I did FW it was always dreadfully galling that they'd cloak up or wersw stabbed to the gills. It didn't ruin FW for me though. I still got killed and got a couple of kills, and learnt some PvP stuffs (Never take on a Hookbill in a brawler Corax), but ultimately what drove me out of it was the constant anxiety of screwing up and getting corp people killed*.

So what this really boils down to is that people aren't getting kills as easy as they'd like them. Instead of trying to find a way to change the meta-game, they're looking for ways to nerf those who are being greedy with the LPs.

* I have anxiety issues, deal with it.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#382 - 2013-12-13 15:47:55 UTC
Amber Kurvora wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
Burtakus wrote:

Your entire argument against our concern is you saying we have no valid concern. By that logic I can shoot down nearly anyone's concern regardless of what it is.

The one arguing that game mechanics need to be changed is the one who needs to prove there's an issue. "Because I say so" is in no way a valid reason to redesign low sec's primary unique mechanic.


So what this really boils down to is that people aren't getting kills as easy as they'd like them. Instead of trying to find a way to change the meta-game, they're looking for ways to nerf those who are being greedy with the LPs.

* I have anxiety issues, deal with it.


We get plenty of kills, the issue we have is with the risk/reward involved in combination with the impact on WZ/System control.

JUSTK is recruiting
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#383 - 2013-12-13 15:58:56 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:

We get plenty of kills, the issue we have is with the risk/reward involved in combination with the impact on WZ/System control.

So you already get plenty of kills, but you want ALL the kills.

Tough.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#384 - 2013-12-13 16:08:07 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Thanatos Marathon wrote:

We get plenty of kills, the issue we have is with the risk/reward involved in combination with the impact on WZ/System control.

So you already get plenty of kills, but you want ALL the kills.

Tough.


No, I want WZ/System control to be slightly less impacted by the farmers.

JUSTK is recruiting
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#385 - 2013-12-13 17:00:58 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Amber Kurvora wrote:
Sal Landry wrote:
Burtakus wrote:

Your entire argument against our concern is you saying we have no valid concern. By that logic I can shoot down nearly anyone's concern regardless of what it is.

The one arguing that game mechanics need to be changed is the one who needs to prove there's an issue. "Because I say so" is in no way a valid reason to redesign low sec's primary unique mechanic.


So what this really boils down to is that people aren't getting kills as easy as they'd like them. Instead of trying to find a way to change the meta-game, they're looking for ways to nerf those who are being greedy with the LPs.

* I have anxiety issues, deal with it.


We get plenty of kills, the issue we have is with the risk/reward involved in combination with the impact on WZ/System control.


Those against our concerns, do you see this as an issue?
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#386 - 2013-12-13 17:02:02 UTC
What is it with oblivious people thinking that we want 'easy kills.'

First of all, if I can kill people solo with a 2 month old character, so can you. You are no longer an 'easy kill.' 1 month of experience in PvP'ing and 2 months of SP and I can get a solo kill. There is no reason for anyone older than that to say that older players have a large advantage. This is for frigate-based combat where you have specific plexes which are restricted to T1 frigates. Add in a few more months in for Cruiser based combat.

Second of all, we don't want farmers flipping systems with alts that can be trained in less than eight hours. Let them farm missions with impunity. Those pay out LP and have PvE aspects. Don't let them (majorly) impact the PvP aspect of FW doing a non-risk activity.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#387 - 2013-12-13 17:33:37 UTC
Am I the only one who thinks that being active in low sec at all is inherently risky enough? Much less going to places where PvPers are pretty much guaranteed to go looking for you?

Look, very very few people go ratting in low sec, aside from hunting tag rats, because the rewards aren't worth the difficulty and the risk of getting jumped. Very few people run low sec anomalies, for the same reason. Some people are content with doing data / relic sites in low sec, because the rewards are small - but so is the risk, since they have to be scanned down, and few people bother. Low sec combat sites get run all the time, because they have to be scanned down - minimizing risk - and the rewards are definitely worth the risk on average.

The issue IMO is that the risk - losing a poorly fit T1 frigate on a noob alt - is far far less than the rewards of offensive plexing. The problem is that heavy handed modifications that prevent T1 noob alt frigates from running away also significantly increase the risk to "legitimate" players looking to plex in order to PvP or to fund their PvP habits. It makes it far far harder to not be a victim of an inty blob or similar situation involving overwhelming odds that no sane player would willingly engage.

Implementing things like timer rollbacks causes too many unintended consequences IMO. Implementing dual timers is an interesting concept, and has far less potential for unintended consequences - the same amount of total work needs to be done by each side. Tweaking the rats also makes sense - something like tweaking the rep amount, or adding a target lock breaking mechanic, would make it difficult for stabbed boats to kill the rat in a reasonable time. That would cause fits to be adjusted, which would make WCS heavy fits less practical. Reducing the rewards for plexing changes the equation, but the isk at risk for a stabbed farmer alt is so low that you'd have to heavily nerf income to make it not worthwhile to do. And of course none of this would make a difference at all to stabbed farmer alts DEFENSIVE plexing.

In short, I don't see them being that big of a deal for control of critical systems, and changing things up risks a lot of unintended consequences.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
George Gouillot
MASS
Pandemic Horde
#388 - 2013-12-13 17:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: George Gouillot
IbanezLaney wrote:
Interesting.

When Caldari had to deal with the Gallente stabbed/cloaked farmers earlier in the year we were told 'working as intended - HTFU'. You had no problem with it when these farmers were on your side.



Lies. Never killed a Minmatar or gallente pilot that had cloak/stabs. Never killed a Minmatar or Gallente pilot at all. Wait ...

Trolling aside, fully support this:


IbanezLaney wrote:


I personally believe that plex gates should restrict all ships with cloaks and stabs just as they restrict oversized ships.
This is a true fix.

Timer roll backs will result in a stagnant warzone. It's a good idea in theory but in practice will result in the same amount of farming.
The difference is that dplexs will be the most farmed which will cause the stagnation.



Timer roll-backs do have negative side effects, restriction of usage of WCS/Cloak in plexes has not.
XOr Brasil
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2013-12-13 18:18:43 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that being active in low sec at all is inherently risky enough? Much less going to places where PvPers are pretty much guaranteed to go looking for you?


Can't say what others think, but no, I don't think low sec is risky enough. If you're risking 400k to make 36M in 15 minutes* by staying 35k away from the warp-in with multiple stabs and a cloak, no, that's not risky enough. If this inbalance is to be considered allright, then bring back lvl5 missions to highsec, why not?

(*) Cap one small in T3 and trade for datacores that you sell for 100k - one of the lowest LP/ISK convertion available...

Veskrashen wrote:

...
The issue IMO is that the risk - losing a poorly fit T1 frigate on a noob alt - is far far less than the rewards of offensive plexing. The problem is that heavy handed modifications that prevent T1 noob alt frigates from running away also significantly increase the risk to "legitimate" players looking to plex in order to PvP or to fund their PvP habits. It makes it far far harder to not be a victim of an inty blob or similar situation involving overwhelming odds that no sane player would willingly engage.


Agree. No one needs to fight if they don't want to. A bubble would drive people away from plexes and we want fights, not a desert wasteland.

Veskrashen wrote:

Implementing things like timer rollbacks causes too many unintended consequences IMO.


What consequences?

Veskrashen wrote:
Implementing dual timers is an interesting concept, and has far less potential for unintended consequences - the same amount of total work needs to be done by each side. Tweaking the rats also makes sense - something like tweaking the rep amount, or adding a target lock breaking mechanic, would make it difficult for stabbed boats to kill the rat in a reasonable time. That would cause fits to be adjusted, which would make WCS heavy fits less practical. Reducing the rewards for plexing changes the equation, but the isk at risk for a stabbed farmer alt is so low that you'd have to heavily nerf income to make it not worthwhile to do. And of course none of this would make a difference at all to stabbed farmer alts DEFENSIVE plexing.

In short, I don't see them being that big of a deal for control of critical systems, and changing things up risks a lot of unintended consequences.


True, they are not a big deal for control of systems. But they are not that different from what the Goons did on the first FW revamp to get LPs... Rewards should be proportional to the risk involved. 36M reward for a 400k risk with almost zero chance of being caught? Way too high!
XOr Brasil
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2013-12-13 18:27:11 UTC
George Gouillot wrote:

Timer roll-backs do have negative side effects, ....


Can you elaborate on that? What negative side effects? (note that I'm not talking about timer *resets*, but rollbacks)

George Gouillot wrote:
...restriction of usage of WCS/Cloak in plexes has not.

Yes it has. Recons in mediums are always fun. Surprising someone with a dual-scram SB too. Those are two PVP uses for cloaks. As much as I hate stabbed/cloaked ships in plexes, to ban it would be too hard (what next? insta-locking OP? Ban! ASBs being abused? Ban!...), but if you do decide to fit them you should have consequences! Buff the rat tanks and you can't do triple-stabbed-cloaking merlins anymore. Leave their DPS as is so they don't give one side a big advantage when fighting inside (like they used to be) and we have a balanced environment. Want to fit mutiple stabs and a cloak then you need to plex in a group (lowering rewards). Want to get all the LP then you need to get DPS, so less room for stabs and cloak...

Balance is all we're asking.
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#391 - 2013-12-13 18:31:11 UTC
XOr Brasil wrote:
[quote=Veskrashen]

True, they are not a big deal for control of systems. But they are not that different from what the Goons did on the first FW revamp to get LPs... Rewards should be proportional to the risk involved. 36M reward for a 400k risk with almost zero chance of being caught? Way too high!


This is the heart of the issue. This risk reward ratio incentive attract a large number of alt farmers whose only interest in FW is extracting isk. Other than extracting isk these farmers have no interest in WZ control.


We are suggesting to implement measures that still make this possible so the mains these alts support do no lose their cash cow but instead move this activity to a more balance approach that has a lower impact in system/WZ control.
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#392 - 2013-12-13 18:34:26 UTC
XOr Brasil wrote:
George Gouillot wrote:

Timer roll-backs do have negative side effects, ....


Can you elaborate on that? What negative side effects? (note that I'm not talking about timer *resets*, but rollbacks)

George Gouillot wrote:
...restriction of usage of WCS/Cloak in plexes has not.

Yes it has. Recons in mediums are always fun. Surprising someone with a dual-scram SB too. Those are two PVP uses for cloaks. As much as I hate stabbed/cloaked ships in plexes, to ban it would be too hard (what next? insta-locking OP? Ban! ASBs being abused? Ban!...), but if you do decide to fit them you should have consequences! Buff the rat tanks and you can't do triple-stabbed-cloaking merlins anymore. Leave their DPS as is so they don't give one side a big advantage when fighting inside (like they used to be) and we have a balanced environment. Want to fit mutiple stabs and a cloak then you need to plex in a group (lowering rewards). Want to get all the LP then you need to get DPS, so less room for stabs and cloak...

Balance is all we're asking.


If timer roll backs are too big of a concern then buffing the rats defensive capabilities in the manner suggested would work as well. To prevent someone clearing a plex with their main and then going afk with their alt you can always make the rat respawn at random times so you have to clear it out again.
Andre Vauban
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2013-12-13 19:15:49 UTC
Veskrashen wrote:
Burtakus wrote:
I could be wrong, but it appears the only ones against this minor suggestion of altering the timer roll back are those defending the incredibly low risk/reward of farming FW plexes provides and are either not in FW or are themselves taking advantage of this abuse.

If that is the case then acknowledging the imbalance this creates and altering it is of no use since it does not impact them except when they need to switch their farming alt to another faction when the tiers change.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


Having thought things over a bit, and looked at the potential for unintended consequences, I oppose timer rollbacks. I would support the idea of dual timers, but even that can be exploited to some degree - though far less so, and far less on a continuing basis.

Consider this scenario: GalMil wants to conquer Innia, again. We start plexing it up, and CalMil being the dirty dirty blobbers they are, start sending 2-3x our numbers into every plex. If the plexes have timer reset mechanics, all they have to do is force us out once every 10-20 minutes to make it literally impossible to make any progress. We wouldn't be able to use our normal tactics of forcing them to be present in force in multiple plexes at a time - because the reset mechanics would mean they just have to force us out of range of the button. Even accelerated mechanics would give them too much of an advantage.

My personal opinion is that FW is a prototype "farms and fields" style system of control, and people aren't used to dealing with it. And to be honest, having a system at 20% contested due to stabbed farmers is a total non-issue. Moreover, farmers cannot seriously contest any area that is actively patrolled - even under existing mechanics.

FW system control is, and in my opinion should be, determined by how much effort you are willing to expend to patrol and defend that area. Stretch too far, and it's too much work and too easy to flip. Keep it small, and there's no way they can contest or flip it. Nisuwa was never really in danger, and even with all the pressure on Eha / Oicx / Vlill, it was weeks before they were able to flip Oicx - and the other two never pushed beyond the high 30s in spite of all the pressure.

In other words, as far as I can tell, things are working as intended. No real need for changes to the plexing mechanics.

I would support a decrease in the LP rewards for plexing, but that would exacerbate the income potential differences between the missions available for each faction. Minmatar and Caldari missions are far easier than Amarr and Gallente, and with reduced plexing income we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot to some degree.

Besides, if you want to talk risk / reward, look at the new DUST bombardments. Can do it with even less skills and with less impact from kitting WCS, with as much if not more LP per hour if you work it right.


This would be a valid concern with an instant rollback, which I don't think anybody is advocating. I don't think this would be an issue with automated gradual timer resets.

.
Vicky Somers
Rusty Anchor
#394 - 2013-12-13 19:41:16 UTC
I saw a ship on dscan but couldn't catch and kill it... Holy crap I better poast in GD because this needs to be nerfed.
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#395 - 2013-12-13 19:48:59 UTC
Vicky Somers wrote:
I saw a ship on dscan but couldn't catch and kill it... Holy crap I better poast in GD because this needs to be nerfed.


wrong issue...not even relevant to this discussion
Paranoid Loyd
#396 - 2013-12-13 19:53:15 UTC
Burtakus wrote:
Vicky Somers wrote:
I saw a ship on dscan but couldn't catch and kill it... Holy crap I better poast in GD because this needs to be nerfed.


wrong issue...not even relevant to this discussion


WTB: Sarcasm detector

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#397 - 2013-12-13 19:58:30 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Burtakus wrote:
Vicky Somers wrote:
I saw a ship on dscan but couldn't catch and kill it... Holy crap I better poast in GD because this needs to be nerfed.


wrong issue...not even relevant to this discussion


WTB: Sarcasm detector


possibly so but there seems to be a strong desire to frame that as the issue in this thread.
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#398 - 2013-12-13 20:52:21 UTC
Guess I need some more clarification on what the problem actually is.

- Is it the impact on system / warzone control that being able to plex in stabbed / cloaky frigates causes?
- Is it the fact that you can make 70k LP/hour in a stabbed frigate at Tier 3?
- Is it the fact that low SP characters can run plexes at all?
- Is it the fact that they can avoid PvP?
- Some combination of the above?

If it's the risk / reward, then how expensive of a ship do you have to be in to justify getting 70k LP/hour at Tier 3 when offensive plexing in a system that's supposed to be "enemy territory", therefore risking ship loss to PvP? Why is it not OK to run plexes in stabbed frigates, but perfectly fine to farm 100k+ LP / hour in cloaky nullified Tengus or stealth bombers?

If it's the fact that they can fit to run away and still be successful, are we going to disable d-scan within range of the plexes to prevent them from warping out when we land on the gate outside? Make them sit there and get blowed up to pad our killboards? You realize those kinds of changes mean you are at greater risk of getting blobbed to death, right?

Don't want farmers to farm, then reduce the rewards. You're not going to be able to increase the risk enough to satisfy yourselves without totally screwing yourself over. Preventing WCS and Cloaks from being used means you just get to kill unfitted 400k frigates instead of cloaky stabbed 1 mil frigates. Loss is still far far less than the potential reward. You'd need to drop it to the point where bittervets and people who go out plexing in 10mil PvP frigates don't see it as worth the risk they're taking, or that they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves on the LP income.

Look, I don't like having to play Benny Hill with these numpties either. But they're not a significant factor in assaulting or defending systems that are actually occupied or patrolled. The LP they make has no significant impact on warzone control where it counts. You're asking to restrict the sandbox because their ability to make LP so easily offends your sensibilities.

I don't see the problem.

I could support the idea of dual timers. That makes sense to me - each side has to spend an equal amount of time in the plex to capture it. If you keep it as it is, the defender has to spend a lot more time than the attacker to undo the damage. If you implement rollbacks or resets, the attacker has to spend more time to cap the plex than the defender. Neither of those seem balanced to me.

I'm ok with the idea of nerfing FW LP income to some degree, but that's easy to say because I've made my stockpile of LP and isk. It's far more profitable per unit time than a lot of other activities in EVE. I'm ok with that, because FW lowsec is more active than damn near any other part of EVE outside of high sec, and you do have risk in that you can be freely engaged anywhere not on a gate or station. Even at those places, there's thousands of FW war targets who get to shoot you freely. The fact that EVE players are smart enough to have figured out how to prosper and thrive in that environment shouldn't be a surprise - it's what we always do.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#399 - 2013-12-13 20:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuixien
Burtakus wrote:


Perhaps so, but you have no valid objection either.


I don't think you know how this works.

I don't exactly need to construct a masterpiece thesis here.

I don't even have to type very much

This is how it works:

You (you guys, you singular) are presenting the case for a change to the current game mechanics.

See, it is not my job to take that proposed change, and come up with a masterful essay as to why it would be a bad change - it is your job to present an argument as to why it would be a good job.

My job is simply to show that either a) your reasons are wrong b) your logic is flawed or c) the suggested change does not improve the game.

The onus is on you. Let's take a look at this point by point for a moment (I'm actually heading off soon so gotta make this somewhat quick - also at this point I can't be that arsed with you)


  1. The Point of FW Heath - "FW is dying." - FW is in fact healthier than ever. Based on the premise that FW exists as an immersive mix of PvP and PvE, there is in fact more of each occurring in the WarZone post-Inferno. Militia numbers have swelled and there is more player interaction occurring in the WarZone, both between opposing militia and between the militia and neutral parties. A simple look at any FW corp KB or veteran FW pilots' KB will show large numbers of kills and losses indicative of a healthy PvP environment.
  2. The Point of Balance - "It's not fair that whoever has the most pilots is winning!" - Mechanically the militias are entirely balanced. None of the rats use EWar in plexes (missions may be different) and every faction has to jump through the same hoops and hurdles to contest and take systems. As far as numbers - well this is entirely in the hands of the players. If you feel outnumbered, then my suggestion to you is to be pro-active and recruit members into your corporation/militia to make up the difference. Keep in mind, however, that numbers change - tomorrow, GalMil may have the numerical advantage. Today, it's Caldari, and that is okay. If one side was permanently locked into the losing position due to farmers, you may have a case - but FW continues to be a dynamic, changing environment.
  3. "FW is supposed to be about PewPew! - No statement from CCP supports this premise. FW is an immersive environment consisting of PvP and non-combat objectives (missions, plexes). This is because FW seems modeled after real life conflicts, which consist not only of combat operations, but non-combat operations. All support the war effort. Plexes are meant to promote PvP - however, CCP has not stated if they mean actual in-plex combat, funding PvP, or both. Best guess based on the evidence (LP, selective acceleration gates, system influence) is both.
  4. "I Don't Like Chasing StabbyCloakies - Then don't. It is in fact entirely your choice to chase cloaky stabbies around.
  5. "Plex runners have too much control!" - This has not been shown. You in fact have the same level of control that they do - just run plexes. Also, plexes are currently the only way to contest systems (aside from DUST). It would seem you have less of a problem with plex runners and more of a problem with the current mechanic of system contestation.
  6. "I just want to limit the influence plexers have on the WZ! - This is actually wanting to limit the amount of influencing plexing has on the WarZone. Perhaps what you really would like is for DUST to be more relevant - perhaps 50% of system influence should be determined via DUST battles?


In short, no one in your camp has presented a strong case. The only point you have approaching validity is perhaps the risk/reward ratio. But you have stated that you care less about risk/reward than you do the influence plexing has on the WZ. So far, FW as it is works, and it works well. That you are not entirely satisfied with it... is relevant only to your personal gameplay.

Personally, I feel the solution is to make DPlexing more lucrative. But that's a change I don't feel like arguing over this very second, and will mull it over a bit and return with a case if I decide it's a viable route. Another option is to make plexing account for only a certain % of system influence - say, 50%. Once the system reaches 50% from plexing, o-plexing turns off and the rest of the influence has to come from DUST. This would make DUST actually relevant, and would incentivize capsuleer organizations to employ the efforts of DUST players.

More to come later.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Burtakus
Lone W0lf Society
#400 - 2013-12-13 21:00:20 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Burtakus wrote:
It doesn't matter what their "hidden agenda" is. You have no valid argument and it's been pointed out over and over.


Perhaps so, but you have no valid objection either.


I don't think you know how this works.

I don't exactly need to construct a masterpiece thesis here.

I don't even have to type very much

This is how it works:

You (you guys, you singular) are presenting the case for a change to the current game mechanics.

See, it is not my job to take that proposed change, and come up with a masterful essay as to why it would be a bad change - it is your job to present an argument as to why it would be a good job.

My job is simply to show that either a) your reasons are wrong b) your logic is flawed or c) the suggested change does not improve the game.

The onus is on you. Let's take a look at this point by point for a moment (I'm actually heading off soon so gotta make this somewhat quick - also at this point I can't be that arsed with you)


  1. The Point of FW Heath - "FW is dying." - FW is in fact healthier than ever. Based on the premise that FW exists as an immersive mix of PvP and PvE, there is in fact more of each occurring in the WarZone post-Inferno. Militia numbers have swelled and there is more player interaction occurring in the WarZone, both between opposing militia and between the militia and neutral parties. A simple look at any FW corp KB or veteran FW pilots' KB will show large numbers of kills and losses indicative of a healthy PvP environment.
  2. The Point of Balance - "It's not fair that whoever has the most pilots is winning!" - Mechanically the militias are entirely balanced. None of the rats use EWar in plexes (missions may be different) and every faction has to jump through the same hoops and hurdles to contest and take systems. As far as numbers - well this is entirely in the hands of the players. If you feel outnumbered, then my suggestion to you is to be pro-active and recruit members into your corporation/militia to make up the difference. Keep in mind, however, that numbers change - tomorrow, GalMil may have the numerical advantage. Today, it's Caldari, and that is okay. If one side was permanently locked into the losing position due to farmers, you may have a case - but FW continues to be a dynamic, changing environment.
  3. "FW is supposed to be about PewPew! - No statement from CCP supports this premise. FW is an immersive environment consisting of PvP and non-combat objectives (missions, plexes). This is because FW seems modeled after real life conflicts, which consist not only of combat operations, but non-combat operations. All support the war effort. Plexes are meant to promote PvP - however, CCP has not stated if they mean actual in-plex combat, funding PvP, or both. Best guess based on the evidence (LP, selective acceleration gates, system influence) is both.
  4. "I Don't Like Chasing StabbyCloakies - Then don't. It is in fact entirely your choice to chase cloaky stabbies around.

  • "Plex runners have too much control!" - This has not been shown. You in fact have the same level of control that they do - just run plexes. Also, plexes are currently the only way to contest systems (aside from DUST). It would seem you have less of a problem with plex runners and more of a problem with the current mechanic of system contestation.
  • "I just want to limit the influence plexers have on the WZ! - This is actually wanting to limit the amount of influencing plexing has on the WarZone. Perhaps what you really would like is for DUST to be more relevant - perhaps 50% of system influence should be determined via DUST battles?
    • [/list]

    In short, no one in your camp has presented a strong case. The only point you have approaching validity is perhaps the risk/reward ratio. But you have stated that you care less about risk/reward than you do the influence plexing has on the WZ. So far, FW as it is works, and it works well. That you are not entirely satisfied with it... is relevant only to your personal gameplay.

    Personally, I feel the solution is to make DPlexing more lucrative. But that's a change I don't feel like arguing over this very second, and will mull it over a bit and return with a case if I decide it's a viable route. Another option is to make plexing account for only a certain % of system influence - say, 50%. Once the system reaches 50% from plexing, o-plexing turns off and the rest of the influence has to come from DUST. This would make DUST actually relevant, and would incentivize capsuleer organizations to employ the efforts of DUST players.

    More to come later.[/quote]

    I have to justify and deliver nothing to you. In the realm of people who need convincing of this you are completely insignificant. Myself and other have wasted sufficient time entertaining you.