Sunday, March 25, 2012

Militia Reacts Part 1: Station Games

One of the main criticisms of Faction War mechanics is that there are no rewards or incentives for taking occupancy of systems. In their discussion of upcoming changes to FW, CCP put forth the plan to remove occupancy altogether and allow a militia to take full sovereignty of a system instead. Essentially, this would prevent the non-sov holding militia to lose access to all stations within that system.

However, neutrals would not be affected and could dock normally.

Allowing neutrals to dock and not a warring militia:

1. punishes people for being in militia by taking away something they could have if they weren’t in Faction War.

2. forces people into the use of alts for moving/accessing ships, which would detract from pvping and playing the game in general.

Currently, you can take over a system in FW in less than 8 hours. This means that one time zone’s access would be risked during another time zone’s play time.

The bottom line is that no one will risk losing access to their assets while they sleep at night.

The consequences of losing access to my assets is too enormous to me to be countered by any benefit I would have in living in that station.


1. People will move from the warzone to stations where they do not have this risk, and ‘commute’ to the warzone as necessary. This will discourage the current small-gang pvp that happens on the day to day basis among people who live in the warzone.

2. Many people will simply leave Faction War and shoot each other in low-sec with the new Crime Watch mechanics instead.

Some say that they should just make this change applicable to FW related stations. However, then people will simply move to non Faction War stations, and the only consequence of losing a station in system would be losing access to the agents. (The agents which many pvpers do not care about anyway.)

Logically speaking, if access to agents were really the only consequence, you would not need to pull this off by removing access to the station altogether. (Just….remove access to the agents.)

In CCP’s scenario, they are presenting us with defensive strategies as means to incentives. (In other words, the incentive is the risk of losing something, rather than the desire to gain something.) In my opinion, this type of insentive, in this situation, will be a hindrance to game play, and more of a frustration to players, rather than an effective incentive to fight over the solar system.

While many say that we need to discuss the 'consequences' of losing systems, you can not motivate people with consequences if there are no benefits that are worth the risk.

A deeper, underlying issue is that CCP is trying to apply basic null-sec sovereignty mechanics into a play-style it will not work for, and onto a community that doesn’t want it.

Related Posts:


  1. This is a fact of life when it comes to nullsec dominion sov warfare. Do you think we like losing access to our assets either? CCP is addressing the lack of risk in lowsec/factional warfare. Use carrier's to ferry your stuff around. Have convoy fleets like we do in 0.0. Organize better, bond as a group, become better. Hopefully you all will learn to HTFU.

  2. interesting post. and I agree losing access to stations is to easy to circumvent. especially with the abundance of stations. I guess CCP forgets about the positive incentive, but what would be an alternative?
    I don't really know much about FW, but I always wondered what's the benefit of having occupancy of a system? because that should be the fuel that drives the war machine.

    PS: good site. keep going :)

  3. The benefit is to keep something youve been handed the entire time of FW when it was half assed introduced. If you want to keep your stations and systems, defend it. If the missioners want their agents, they can join a corp to help defend or find agents elsewhere.

    Everyone is saying that youre being motivated by consequences and no benefit, but the only thing they are doing is finishing FW in a way that it should have been in the first place. Just because youve played with a broken system since inception, doesnt mean it was the way it was intended.

    As for the timers, I agree they should be changed to something more palpatable, but even then, I like the 8 hours because then it forces a faction to look for and recruit for all timezones instead of working independently.

    Like I said, its not a consequence to be forced to defend your homes and its definately a benefit to have access to that station (not to mention bragging rights of your factions space)

  4. I'm not into FW.. not yet anyway.. to me it sounds logical that taking over systems and stations would be the right way to go. I mean in a real war stations and systems would be open for taking.. would ppl move to other stations? well maybe.. i mean in 0.0 we still put our shit into one station and we might lose it.. we do have timers so we at least has some time to move out.. and that has to be added to the FW to.

    This would also be in line with that CCP wanted FW to be a way to get ppl ready for 0.0 life. Problem we have is that we got a ton of ppl that are in FW that never wants to go to 0.0 and wishing something else for FW witch no one so far has been able to put on paper.. so the question is.. what do FW ppl want out of FW?

  5. But if it's a faction WAR, it should have some form of effect, and "owning" stations is a good way for it. However you are right that some positive reward is needed, for example increased agent mission rewards or decreased broker fee, sales tax, repair cost, clone costs for militia members on stations owned.

  6. If you have sov, you can control the cyno jammer. Is the benefits good enough?

  7. Aside from the ILF/I-RED, FW seems to be the "last bastion" of "lolRP in EVE".
    Tell me, from a "lolRP", or even a "hey this makes sense in the universe given" standpoint: does it make sense that you, an enlisted military member of a government at war, be able to enter freely into a military station of the government you're at war WITH?
    It does not. One of the biggest things with my short stint in FW (with an alt of course) that struck me was that hey, I can dock at Amarrian military stations....lolwhat? Shouldn't I be denied docking rights at least...? if not outright SHOT AT by station guns???
    One of the "little things" that just made me shake my head and go "eehhhh no thanks after all."

    Just from a "common sense makes sense, commonly" standpoint, being unable to dock at a hostile military station makes perfect sense.

    I live near a Navy base. Think they're going to let an al Qaeda member in full regalia just walk right on in and wander around freely? Come ON.

    That being said, according to EVE "canon" (such as it is), the "civilian" megacorps are all greedy bastards and want as much of the trade pie as they can get their hands on, so they'll let ANYONE dock up.

    All of that being said, I think making FW "sov-lite" and a test bed for new null mechanics is bullshit. CCP wants to "test" new things, they should do that on SiSi (you know, the "test" server, what a novel idea!) and offer up some real rewards/benefits to get people to show up and try them out.
    Using you guys to that end is just wrong. You pays your money or grinds your PLEX like the rest of us, and you deserve something more than "guinea pig" status.