These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Let's talk about Suitonia's suggestions to improve FW

Author
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#21 - 2017-02-17 16:57:24 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
dual timers seems like a more elegant solution than timer rollbacks.



The dual timer idea is considerably more forgiving to rabbit plexing. Not only does it require the pvper to stay in the plex while it rollsback to neutral but more importantly it would not effect rabbit plexers who run from pirates. This is likely a substantial number of combatants who enter plexes.

So the question really is how important is it to eliminate rabbit plexing. This highlights Master Sergeants MacRobert's point

Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:


FW has suffered a population crisis because so many long term Militia pilots have quit due to the system not working. .



There was a time when the vast majority of fw players were clearly behind timer rollbacks and everyone hoped they would do away with rabbit plexing. CCP acknowledged this popular support and promised rollbacks and better intel tools. But CCP never changed anything so those who remain are almost by definition those who don't think rabbit plexing is that big of a problem.

The proposals Thanatos made are all fine and good but they are not going to change anything respecting rabbit plexing. This has caused endless disenchantment with faction war since it started. Many had hopes that Hans would push to end that when he was in CSM but alas it was not to be. Instead we had more changes that tweaked tier systems and benefits as well as tweaks to npcs back and forth that really never addressed why many people think the fw sov system is fundamentally broken.

It is interesting that those who now remain in faction war don't even list rollbacks as a change they want.

Bottom line is CCP has to decide whether they think rabbit plexing is good or bad. They seemed to say it was bad and promised to take measures against it but then we just never heard from them again.

It would be great if someone from CSM would at least ask CCP what the deal is with these changes. I give citations to the promises in an earlier post if anyone is interested:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6607431#post6607431

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#22 - 2017-02-17 17:51:39 UTC
SHOULD a neutral pirate scaring a plexer away interupt or set back plexing?

They aren't actively trying to "win the system/complex" back for the other side... they're neutral. They just want to blow up ships... they don't care who holds the system. If you're trying to win the faction war, fights with pirates really are a side effect. Fights with the enemy is the actual point.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#23 - 2017-02-17 18:18:12 UTC
Scialt wrote:
SHOULD a neutral pirate scaring a plexer away interupt or set back plexing?

They aren't actively trying to "win the system/complex" back for the other side... they're neutral. They just want to blow up ships... they don't care who holds the system. If you're trying to win the faction war, fights with pirates really are a side effect. Fights with the enemy is the actual point.



If you want people in plexes to be pvpers then the more disruption to rabbit plexing the better. The side that can pvp better will have the better chances of winning plexes and therefor the sov war. The pvp may be against pirates or it might be against the enemy it really doesn't matter to most pvpers.

Keep in mind both sides will have to deal with pirates. So unless there is some sort of deal worked out with neutrals (and such diplomacy is something eve has always supported) then both sides are still on equal footing. Plexes will be harder to win. Its true. But perhaps they should award more victory points if that is the case. (I don't really care about loyalty points)

Also I would point out that there are still some advantages to the fw player in the plex:
1) They are in the plex to begin with so can set up range (this is substantial)
2) FW players who just want to win the plex just need to fight off the person entering. So they can have very long range weapons and don't even really need to worry about fitting a point. For the nonfaction war player looking for a kill they would need to fit a point and just chasing someone doesn't really accomplish their purpose.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#24 - 2017-02-17 18:27:33 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Scialt wrote:
SHOULD a neutral pirate scaring a plexer away interupt or set back plexing?

They aren't actively trying to "win the system/complex" back for the other side... they're neutral. They just want to blow up ships... they don't care who holds the system. If you're trying to win the faction war, fights with pirates really are a side effect. Fights with the enemy is the actual point.



If you want people in plexes to be pvpers then the more disruption to rabbit plexing the better. The side that can pvp better will have the better chances of winning plexes and therefor the sov war. The pvp may be against pirates or it might be against the enemy it really doesn't matter to most pvpers.

Keep in mind both sides will have to deal with pirates. So unless there is some sort of deal worked out with neutrals (and such diplomacy is something eve has always supported) then both sides are still on equal footing. Plexes will be harder to win. Its true. But perhaps they should award more victory points if that is the case. (I don't really care about loyalty points)

Also I would point out that there are still some advantages to the fw player in the plex:
1) They are in the plex to begin with so can set up range (this is substantial)
2) FW players who just want to win the plex just need to fight off the person entering. So they can have very long range weapons and don't even really need to worry about fitting a point. For the nonfaction war player looking for a kill they would need to fit a point and just chasing someone doesn't really accomplish their purpose.


I guess it comes down to the question of what FW is about?

Is it just about PvP... as much as possible? Or is it about the "game" of plexing and capturing systems between the opposing factions?

If it's the former, then anything promoting any PvP would be good. I have my doubts that making the current plexing mechanic a lot harder would in fact increase pvp. Instead it might drive people away from FW and more toward other ways of making isk which might in fact lower the number of targets for people seeking PvP around plexes. I suppose it might make it easier for the hunter in that they're more likely to have a willing target at a plex once they find someone at a plex... but the number of people they find at plexes in total might be much lower.

If it's the latter, neutrals aren't really part of the game. I'm not sure their actions should have the same impact as an opposing faction member doing the same things.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#25 - 2017-02-17 19:26:31 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Scialt wrote:
SHOULD a neutral pirate scaring a plexer away interupt or set back plexing?

They aren't actively trying to "win the system/complex" back for the other side... they're neutral. They just want to blow up ships... they don't care who holds the system. If you're trying to win the faction war, fights with pirates really are a side effect. Fights with the enemy is the actual point.



If you want people in plexes to be pvpers then the more disruption to rabbit plexing the better. The side that can pvp better will have the better chances of winning plexes and therefor the sov war. The pvp may be against pirates or it might be against the enemy it really doesn't matter to most pvpers.

Keep in mind both sides will have to deal with pirates. So unless there is some sort of deal worked out with neutrals (and such diplomacy is something eve has always supported) then both sides are still on equal footing. Plexes will be harder to win. Its true. But perhaps they should award more victory points if that is the case. (I don't really care about loyalty points)

Also I would point out that there are still some advantages to the fw player in the plex:
1) They are in the plex to begin with so can set up range (this is substantial)
2) FW players who just want to win the plex just need to fight off the person entering. So they can have very long range weapons and don't even really need to worry about fitting a point. For the nonfaction war player looking for a kill they would need to fit a point and just chasing someone doesn't really accomplish their purpose.


I guess it comes down to the question of what FW is about?

Is it just about PvP... as much as possible? Or is it about the "game" of plexing and capturing systems between the opposing factions?

If it's the former, then anything promoting any PvP would be good. I have my doubts that making the current plexing mechanic a lot harder would in fact increase pvp. Instead it might drive people away from FW and more toward other ways of making isk which might in fact lower the number of targets for people seeking PvP around plexes. I suppose it might make it easier for the hunter in that they're more likely to have a willing target at a plex once they find someone at a plex... but the number of people they find at plexes in total might be much lower.

If it's the latter, neutrals aren't really part of the game. I'm not sure their actions should have the same impact as an opposing faction member doing the same things.



I don't think it's a dichotomy like you suggest. It can be a pvp game about capturing plexes and systems. And yes IMO I think FW sov should be a pvp game.

If you want to do the whole rabbit v. hunter thing you can do fw missions. Players also have many non fw options in eve to do hunter v rabbit games in null, wormholes and low sec. Missions, exploration, sleeper sites, ratting, special events etc etc. IMO Eve really doesn't need yet another rabbit v hunter mechanic. It needs more good quallity pvp war mechanics. And leaving fw sov as yet another hunter v rabbit game is not good for fw and is especially bad for eve as a whole.

The sov game should simply be better than who can multibox the most alts in different plexes and warp off if trouble comes.

As far as making isk, I don't care if ccp wants to increase the amount of lp per plex. Fewer plexes captured but the same amount of total lp given to plexers. Or they could lower the amount of lp fw missions offer. (which would make the lp in plexes comparatively more valuable.) But right now the lp is just getting devalued by people multiboxing alts and rabbit plexing. If you want that lp to be worth more isk you might want to end rabbit plexing as well.

But the key is to make winning sov fun. If people are just grinding plexes so they can make isk for their null sec main then fw is not where it should be. EVE players need fulfilling game-play that they want to actually spend that isk on. IMO fighting for faction war sov could be a mechanic like that - if ccp makes the changes it promised the players. But as the years go by and the promises are forgotten more eve players leave fw and maybe even the game as a whole.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Scialt
Universal Sanitation Corporation
#26 - 2017-02-17 19:59:33 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Scialt wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Scialt wrote:
SHOULD a neutral pirate scaring a plexer away interupt or set back plexing?

They aren't actively trying to "win the system/complex" back for the other side... they're neutral. They just want to blow up ships... they don't care who holds the system. If you're trying to win the faction war, fights with pirates really are a side effect. Fights with the enemy is the actual point.



If you want people in plexes to be pvpers then the more disruption to rabbit plexing the better. The side that can pvp better will have the better chances of winning plexes and therefor the sov war. The pvp may be against pirates or it might be against the enemy it really doesn't matter to most pvpers.

Keep in mind both sides will have to deal with pirates. So unless there is some sort of deal worked out with neutrals (and such diplomacy is something eve has always supported) then both sides are still on equal footing. Plexes will be harder to win. Its true. But perhaps they should award more victory points if that is the case. (I don't really care about loyalty points)

Also I would point out that there are still some advantages to the fw player in the plex:
1) They are in the plex to begin with so can set up range (this is substantial)
2) FW players who just want to win the plex just need to fight off the person entering. So they can have very long range weapons and don't even really need to worry about fitting a point. For the nonfaction war player looking for a kill they would need to fit a point and just chasing someone doesn't really accomplish their purpose.


I guess it comes down to the question of what FW is about?

Is it just about PvP... as much as possible? Or is it about the "game" of plexing and capturing systems between the opposing factions?

If it's the former, then anything promoting any PvP would be good. I have my doubts that making the current plexing mechanic a lot harder would in fact increase pvp. Instead it might drive people away from FW and more toward other ways of making isk which might in fact lower the number of targets for people seeking PvP around plexes. I suppose it might make it easier for the hunter in that they're more likely to have a willing target at a plex once they find someone at a plex... but the number of people they find at plexes in total might be much lower.

If it's the latter, neutrals aren't really part of the game. I'm not sure their actions should have the same impact as an opposing faction member doing the same things.



I don't think it's a dichotomy like you suggest. It can be a pvp game about capturing plexes and systems. And yes IMO I think FW sov should be a pvp game.

If you want to do the whole rabbit v. hunter thing you can do fw missions. Players also have many non fw options in eve to do hunter v rabbit games in null, wormholes and low sec. Missions, exploration, sleeper sites, ratting, special events etc etc. IMO Eve really doesn't need yet another rabbit v hunter mechanic. It needs more good quallity pvp war mechanics. And leaving fw sov as yet another hunter v rabbit game is not good for fw and is especially bad for eve as a whole.

The sov game should simply be better than who can multibox the most alts in different plexes and warp off if trouble comes.

As far as making isk, I don't care if ccp wants to increase the amount of lp per plex. Fewer plexes captured but the same amount of total lp given to plexers. Or they could lower the amount of lp fw missions offer. (which would make the lp in plexes comparatively more valuable.) But right now the lp is just getting devalued by people multiboxing alts and rabbit plexing. If you want that lp to be worth more isk you might want to end rabbit plexing as well.

But the key is to make winning sov fun. If people are just grinding plexes so they can make isk for their null sec main then fw is not where it should be. EVE players need fulfilling game-play that they want to actually spend that isk on. IMO fighting for faction war sov could be a mechanic like that - if ccp makes the changes it promised the players. But as the years go by and the promises are forgotten more eve players leave fw and maybe even the game as a whole.


I wasn't really talking about the idea that rabbiting plexes should be able to be stopped by FW opponents... I question if neutrals should stop it. Neutrals (or pirates if you will) are there to get in fights. They aren't playing the FW game... or they'd join a FW corp.

If the goal of FW is JUST pvp... then having neutrals disrupt plexing might be reasonable. It would (in theory) encourage the plexer to stay and fight.

But if the goal of FW is the "game" (which includes PvP between militias)... it might not be reasonable. There's not a great reason as to why a neutral should be able to impact the "game" of FW as much as the participants.

As to what "fun" is... I've learned that my ideas of what is fun are not the same as others in my corp. Some people view isk acquisition as fun in itself... not as an avenue for their main somewhere else. Others love PvP. Some like running missions for its own sake. Some like working the manufacturing process.

It's difficult to use that as a metric when making decisions.

Also... as far as the "rabbit vs hunter" part... that feels like what PvP in eve is for the most part. Even if you lose all plex progress if you warp away from the grid of a site.... I'm going to run if a ship or group of ships that outclasses me comes in. That's not necessarily being a rabbit... that's simply choosing your fights. Part of PvP in the game is catching a kill or avoiding being caught by a superior force. Many times that's the battle. I don't think there's much you can do with the mechanics that will alleviate that.

Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#27 - 2017-02-17 20:56:48 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
No mention of the impacts of Citadels on FW.

Why citadels is a problem in FW space in comparison to POSes?
LouHodo
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
Ushra'Khan
#28 - 2017-02-18 20:42:23 UTC
My major issue with FW is it feels hollow.

There is no real lasting effect on the rest of the universe. It is like fighting a war that no one cares about and has no effect on anything you know.

If I capture a system with my corp mates, it has NO effect on the rest of the faction. Not like the Minmatar or the Amaar gain or lose a system that effects anything. There is no coverage of the FW in anything for the games news. There is MORE news on some 5 man corp going to war with another 5 man corp than anything to do with FW.
Taurean Eltanin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2017-02-18 20:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Taurean Eltanin
LouHodo wrote:
My major issue with FW is it feels hollow.

There is no real lasting effect on the rest of the universe. It is like fighting a war that no one cares about and has no effect on anything you know.

If I capture a system with my corp mates, it has NO effect on the rest of the faction. Not like the Minmatar or the Amaar gain or lose a system that effects anything. There is no coverage of the FW in anything for the games news. There is MORE news on some 5 man corp going to war with another 5 man corp than anything to do with FW.


CCP has given us null sec for wars that actually impact the people involved. FW is intentionally static, so that people can relax and find fights. Otherwise, the wars would have ended long ago, as one side in each conflict became dominant and crushed the other. We don't want the Caldari State going the way of Band of Brothers, for example.

If you like reading about low sec piracy or wormhole pvp, you might enjoy my blog.

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#30 - 2017-02-19 14:21:08 UTC
Taurean Eltanin wrote:
LouHodo wrote:
My major issue with FW is it feels hollow.

There is no real lasting effect on the rest of the universe. It is like fighting a war that no one cares about and has no effect on anything you know.

If I capture a system with my corp mates, it has NO effect on the rest of the faction. Not like the Minmatar or the Amaar gain or lose a system that effects anything. There is no coverage of the FW in anything for the games news. There is MORE news on some 5 man corp going to war with another 5 man corp than anything to do with FW.


CCP has given us null sec for wars that actually impact the people involved. FW is intentionally static, so that people can relax and find fights. Otherwise, the wars would have ended long ago, as one side in each conflict became dominant and crushed the other. We don't want the Caldari State going the way of Band of Brothers, for example.



I think what you say about the more relaxed atmosphere is the most important.

I would just add that the converse is somewhat true as well. Other than having a director sneak in to hit disband its very hard to have any real lasting effect in null sec as well. I mean the imperium just suffered the largest most crushing defeat in eve history from a military perspective. Yet they just packed up and moved to delve. Since they are the largest group in their area (jump range) they are doing just fine. So although the impacts are larger in null sec they do not exactly have a "real lasting effect on the rest of the universe."

At base eve is a sandbox full of immortals. People can keep coming back to the fight as long as they want.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#31 - 2017-02-19 16:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
The current tier system is fine. There is a common misconception that tier 1 is too punitive as its half that of tier 2.

Fact is that its very likely that your LP will become worth twice that of the opposing faction. This might take a little time since hte market has to adjust to supply but if you ignore the market in your appraisal of how the tier system works then you really do not understand what you are talking about.

In practical terms, tier 1 is not -50% of tier 2. And tier 4 is not +150% of tier 2.

This is compounded by those that put time in to getting the best rates for their items with sell orders etc.

Im not opposed to a change, but many people see problems with the tier system that just done exist.

Taurean Eltanin wrote:


CCP has given us null sec for wars that actually impact the people involved. FW is intentionally static, so that people can relax and find fights. Otherwise, the wars would have ended long ago, as one side in each conflict became dominant and crushed the other. We don't want the Caldari State going the way of Band of Brothers, for example.


This is not true, Null is FW-LITE.

FW offers just as many bragging rights, though perhaps not the resources. The fact that null is governed by timer after timer encouraging huge formups for pings and inactivity while things are not vulnerable, FW is a 24 hour battle. Any time you dont log in for 3 days straight, any 3 days, your home station could be inaccessible to you.

Citadels have been mentioned here. TBH, that seriously damaged the station lock out system which IMO was one of the primary motivations for many to undock and make things happen. Now station lock outs are almost meaningless, and even killing a citadel results in practically no loss, FW is very similar to what it was before inferno.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#32 - 2017-02-19 18:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Station lockouts in FW never did much beside make roaming more of a pia for FW players. It significantly decreased the amount of roaming faction war players would do. The fighting overall increased due to inferno for many different reasons but the lockouts made the fighting more concentrated. Hopefully citadels will change that - or ccp can just end fw station lockouts all together.

Anyone except the militia can dock in all stations. So its easy to get your stuff. There would be big fights every now and then when someone would push a heavily occupied enemy system but there never was really any stakes in the matter anyway. Just bragging rights. Citadels have a much larger impact on null sec sov - where it really was an issue if you lost your stuff in a station. Citadels probably have a beneficial impact in both places for the more casual player and players that like to pvp in multiple areas of space.

The LP store is horrible compared to how it was. Plus players have so much reserve lp from when it had value that they can dump it whenever that lp starts to gain value - which it rarely does anymore. Gallente traditionally had a great LP store in part because they used to have harder missions and in part because they have better offers. The missions were traditionally the way to get the most lp for your time. I am not sure if that is still the case after ccp changed missions. Are the missions now balanced?

edit: I will decline Crosi's invitation to squabble. Most of what he says is wrong in so many ways its not worth the time to correct so much misinformation.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#33 - 2017-02-19 18:53:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Every single big event in FW for the last few years has been due to station lock outs and to some degree the tier system. Before tiers and station lock outs, FW was completely dead.

You have a very niche POV, that of a lone incursus/punisher pilot who flies alone and has a remarkably narrow engagement envelope and therefore see very few potential targets. Even if FW became super active again, and every plex was filled with PVPers. You would complain about how FW is just blobs and they are all the wrong type op PVPers.

As with most low end soloers, you put your chosen game play on a pedestal as if thats what it is to play EVE, at the expense of most other players.

As for the LP store, there is a lag, but i have seen huge swings in LP values across all 4 factions depending on their tier levels. The LP store has never yet prevented any single faction from 'swinging back'. And of course, if someone dumps a load of LP the market is crashed, but that always proven to be just momentary. Since all factions LP has varied in worth from 600/800 isk/LP to 2000/2500 isk/LP.

And on citadels. I would argue that they are good in mechanical terms. Im not a big fan of vulnerability timers or windows but i accept them. However good they are in general terms, they are completely incompatible with how FW has been for the last few years. During which time FW has generated more content than at any other time other than perhaps the first few months before everyone realise how there was no point to it and moved on.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#34 - 2017-02-19 21:38:49 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:

And on citadels. I would argue that they are good in mechanical terms. Im not a big fan of vulnerability timers or windows but i accept them. However good they are in general terms, they are completely incompatible with how FW has been for the last few years. During which time FW has generated more content than at any other time other than perhaps the first few months before everyone realise how there was no point to it and moved on.

But you could and still can drop a POS in the system for reshiping, so what's the difference apart from asset safety and that is not a FW problem it's a citadel problem.
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#35 - 2017-02-19 22:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:

And on citadels. I would argue that they are good in mechanical terms. Im not a big fan of vulnerability timers or windows but i accept them. However good they are in general terms, they are completely incompatible with how FW has been for the last few years. During which time FW has generated more content than at any other time other than perhaps the first few months before everyone realise how there was no point to it and moved on.

But you could and still can drop a POS in the system for reshiping, so what's the difference apart from asset safety and that is not a FW problem it's a citadel problem.


Assuming thats a serious question. The difference between a POS and a citadel is like night and day. POSes are notoriously hard to live and work out of with huge security issues, time consuming and potentially dangerous logistics and is subject to attack at any time and the defender has to be available at that time to manufacture a favourable out timer.

Not to mention the asset safety, which you dismiss as though it aint no thang.

My suggetion would be that FW mechanics overrule any and all standings set by a citadel thereby preventing any WT from docking in any citadel in a system occupied by the opposing faction. This would restore the defensive advantage that was a part of system sieges. It would also restore the entire point of the siege in the first place.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#36 - 2017-02-19 23:39:18 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Crosi Wesdo wrote:

And on citadels. I would argue that they are good in mechanical terms. Im not a big fan of vulnerability timers or windows but i accept them. However good they are in general terms, they are completely incompatible with how FW has been for the last few years. During which time FW has generated more content than at any other time other than perhaps the first few months before everyone realise how there was no point to it and moved on.

But you could and still can drop a POS in the system for reshiping, so what's the difference apart from asset safety and that is not a FW problem it's a citadel problem.


Assuming thats a serious question. The difference between a POS and a citadel is like night and day. POSes are notoriously hard to live and work out of with huge security issues, time consuming and potentially dangerous logistics and is subject to attack at any time and the defender has to be available at that time to manufacture a favourable out timer.

Not to mention the asset safety, which you dismiss as though it aint no thang.

My suggetion would be that FW mechanics overrule any and all standings set by a citadel thereby preventing any WT from docking in any citadel in a system occupied by the opposing faction. This would restore the defensive advantage that was a part of system sieges. It would also restore the entire point of the siege in the first place.

Everything that you mentioned is imo a citadel problem in general that can be summarized as they are too safe regardless in what type of space they are in.

I do have to say your standing suggestion is interesting, but it is impossible to deny that with POSes there was a possibility of staging in WT system, I never heard people complain about that. (to specify I never heard people have a problems with WTs having a destructible staging point in their system) Also good to keep in mind sooner or later POSes will get removed (CCP soon tm).

So my main question still is: is it bad in your opinion that WTs can stage from a destructible structure?
Aves Asio
#37 - 2017-02-19 23:39:38 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
The current tier system is fine. There is a common misconception that tier 1 is too punitive as its half that of tier 2.

Fact is that its very likely that your LP will become worth twice that of the opposing faction. This might take a little time since hte market has to adjust to supply but if you ignore the market in your appraisal of how the tier system works then you really do not understand what you are talking about.

In practical terms, tier 1 is not -50% of tier 2. And tier 4 is not +150% of tier 2.

This is compounded by those that put time in to getting the best rates for their items with sell orders etc.

Im not opposed to a change, but many people see problems with the tier system that just done exist.


But if we remove the farmers from the equation then the whole system falls apart.
Nat Silverguard
Aideron Robotics
#38 - 2017-02-20 05:34:14 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:

Everything that you mentioned is imo a citadel problem in general that can be summarized as they are too safe regardless in what type of space they are in.

I do have to say your standing suggestion is interesting, but it is impossible to deny that with POSes there was a possibility of staging in WT system, I never heard people complain about that. (to specify I never heard people have a problems with WTs having a destructible staging point in their system) Also good to keep in mind sooner or later POSes will get removed (CCP soon tm).

So my main question still is: is it bad in your opinion that WTs can stage from a destructible structure?


it is not bad if it's only POS, imho, some of the enjoyable system defenses i participated in was because the squids has POS in the system.

citadels are different, it totally voids the station lock-out game.

Just Add Water

Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
#39 - 2017-02-20 17:57:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Crosi Wesdo
Indeed, Citadels are a very different animal from a POS. POS requires a great deal more effort on every level and because of that it does not negate the homefield advantage. IMO, if a hostile force can turn a POS into a consistent advantage in system then im OK with that due to my appreciation of the challenges that would need to be overcome to do so.

Im sure that anyone that has fought from a POS during a system push will appreciate the utter chaos that quickly descends. Damaged ships, no readily available ammo, off-lined mods, shield passwords, POS defences, standings of multiple corps/alliances and NPC militia, trust issues, hanger access, assett theft due to password leaks, having to light cynos on hostile stations for logistics etc...

Im not sure what the deployment rules are for citadels in null space regarding ownership of the system you want to anchor it. However, as i mentioned before, FW is a 24/7 battle. FW occupancy does not have the safety net that null SOV does with its systems being defended by a multi stage timer system.

In FW, if all plexes are captured promptly, its possible to swing a system in less than 30 hours of continuous plexing (3.5% per hour average) from any starting point. There is NO equivalent of that in NULL. In NULL there is no requirement to log in to defend your null space apart from during well broadcasted timers.
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#40 - 2017-02-21 13:42:30 UTC
Crosi Wesdo wrote:
The current tier system is fine. There is a common misconception that tier 1 is too punitive as its half that of tier 2.

Fact is that its very likely that your LP will become worth twice that of the opposing faction. This might take a little time since hte market has to adjust to supply but if you ignore the market in your appraisal of how the tier system works then you really do not understand what you are talking about.

In practical terms, tier 1 is not -50% of tier 2. And tier 4 is not +150% of tier 2.

This is compounded by those that put time in to getting the best rates for their items with sell orders etc.

Im not opposed to a change, but many people see problems with the tier system that just done exist.



You wrote "There is a common misconception that tier 1 is too punitive as its half that of tier 2."


The misconception may be true (I disagree) but, even misconceived it results in their being a problem. Many from the player base sees it as a huge disadvantage. You already have to combat the natural tendency of gamers to migrate to the "winning" side. Whether they understand or not.

FW does not have decent "career goals" to encourage the likes of the core group you were once part of in GalMil. It needs them.

AmarrMil and MinMil had core groups that were similar but many became disillusioned sooner. This was in part because PvPers realised the broken system and many moved to the Cal-Gal zone to get more PvP (due to the activity over there and the proximity to lots of nullsec alliances playing Black Rise, etc..).


The current FW Tier penatly / bonus issue is a problem because it encourages flip flop capsuleers and reduces faction loyalty. It should be flattened and put Tier 1 at 100% (it is also in direct competition with other isk making activities and even Fighters have to fund their PvP habit).


There are a number of mechanisms that could be utilised to further encourage Faction loyalty and provide goals for someone to decide to stay in Militia for the long run. This should be looked at and FW should be given a proper expansion that it was apparently given in the past.

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"