Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Victory By Default?

One of the major problems of fighting for fights sake, is that your enemy will often decide not to engage if they feel that they don't have a chance.

This was seen this weekend when the Amarr (specifically Smurfsbrigade) abandoned their ships in a station and ran home in pods -- choosing not to engage the 60 man AHAC/Guardian fleet that the Minmatar were running around in. (We didn't really blame them.)

It was also seen last night, when the Amarr cruiser/BC gang refused to ship up and come after our small BC gang that was roaming in the area, claiming we had more numbers then we did by a long shot. (They of course count random AFK, docked militia in any given system.)

What's ironic is that both sides in this situation will feel themselves the victor. The party that decided to dock and live another day will consider themselves pushed into a corner and will look down their noses at the opposing force that 'blobbed' them. And, the party that forced the enemy to dock will claim victory by default.

In many ways, I believe this 'pick-and-choose pvp' is what many Faction War pilots seek to maintain in FW. Some call it 'casual' pvp, or 'fight club.' But in general, what it is is consensual pvp--the ability to choose what you want to fight, where you want to fight, when you want to fight.

And I firmly believe that this sort of 'causal, consensual pvp' atmosphere is the very thing that has made Faction War as stale as it currently is. As people wait more and more for the 'perfect fight', pvp action has slowly dried up until having an all out engagement can sometimes be a rare occurrence.

While encouraging pvp through LP payouts is good, I don't think it will be enough to break the current, stale trend in Faction War pvp. In many ways, I feel that the only thing that can really break this trend is a motivator of the opposite sort -- a consequence for not pvping.

In null-sec (and I realize that comparing FW to null-sec in any ways causes a great many feathers to ruffle) if you don't defend your space you lose it, along with all the perks and 'income' that comes with it. This isn't a 'null-sec' thing or 'sovereignty-mechanic.' This is simply risk vs reward --something that permeates and affects every mechanic in the game.

In many ways, when people whine about CCP forcing 'null-sec' mechanics down FW pilot's throats, I think what they are really scared of is this idea of risk. In many ways, introducing something into the game that provides a consequence for not defending your system introduces a sort of 'non-consensual' pvp into FW, and I think this scares people to death.

I know that there are issues with the proposed docking restrictions, especially concerning the time it takes to flip a system. I know that a great many people are against it altogether, even threatening to leave Faction War and EVE altogether if CCP goes through with it. I know that restricting docking access may cause some interesting problems that we have to work through.

But as I sit afk in space on a gate, on a station --anywhere, waiting in vain for wartargets to undock and provide some much needed action in this game, a growing part of me hopes that CCP will do it anyway.


  1. And make sure there is that other part of you that realizes when you have to take a vacation or go away for a few days. That's why I just don't like the docking restrictions as I value my real life over a game.

    And I'm sure any person who looks at the log-ins of their corp members will realize a great majority of them do not log in every day either. Be careful of what you wish for....

  2. I agree that the timers should be increased and that it should take longer to take systems. But where do you draw the line? EVE, by its nature, is not a put down for a while, and pick up where I left off type of game. When I want to do that, honestly, I go play something else.

    No matter what you do in this game, coming back from vacation for a few days can mean a lot of changes -- drama in corp, corp joining an alliance, loss of null-sec space, loss of blues, new blues, etc. Many of these situations don't have timers attached to them. ;)
    Yeah, going to bed at night and waking up the next day to a complete lock-out is a little unbalanced.

    But when you start whining about real life vacations and taking breaks...I think this is where CCP pretty much says, "Welcome to EVE!"

    1. For sure. And that's where EVE wants you immersed as much into their game as possible so it literally sucks the RL priorities away from you !

      I much preferred your tiered plan for Inferno. So with another month to go, it will be interesting to see if CCP gets this right or screws us over.

    2. I like the tiered approach too, in coordination with sovereignty. That way, it's a big deal to take sovereignty, and pilots can invest as much or little into a system, based on what they plan to use it for, etc. (ie: the 'sovereignty' fights can be saved for systems we actually want to live in, etc.)

  3. almost as if you need something to fight over....

  4. I had a couple of good fights a few days ago when I started solo-closing plexes in Auga. Got some TMFED and other guys to come out and fight to prevent me from plexing. Maybe if system control had greater consequence even more would have come.

  5. The word missing from the post is "ganking". People don't look for fights. They claim to, but they lie. They look for targets to gank. Targets that don't have a chance to win. Not helpless freighters and hulks - after all the FW pilots are not Goons - ships that will put up SOME fight, but surely lose at the end. If the fight has a chance to go ill, they won't undock.

    If you force them to fight by some sov mechanic, they stop playing. Gankers aren't fighters, they are imitation of fighters. Fighters are already in null, simply because that's where the other fighters are.

    1. "Fighters are already in null, simply because that's where the other fighters are. "

      Because surrounding yourself with thousands of blues and only fighting when you have 200 in fleet is what pro fighters do.

      Confirming there are no fighters in low-sec. ;) Only people who gank noobs.

    2. Susan be fair about last night. We had 11 in all you had 8 or 9. We were armor cruiser with ONE bc you were mostly shield bc with a rapier and logi. Since I had eyes on your fleet and on other side of gate don't try to make it sound like there was 5 of you.

      I'm not going to derp my fleet into you for the sake of a fight. Just like the minnie fleet that let that 1.3 billion isk loki die while they sat on other side of the gate an hour before what you are taking about happened. Neither side wants to take a fight they surly cannot win.

      On to the matter of shipping up. We rarely fight in systems where we base. In fact most people in Amarr militia base all around the area. Shipping up was not as easy as it was in the old days when Amarr and Minmatar met in kourm then left to refit in Huola or Auga.

      Once this no docking thing happens you will see a lot less reshipping as the losing side bases outside FW space. This is not good for your pvp.


    3. Almity,
      To be fair,

      It's somewhat contradictory to rag on us for what we bring to a fight and then provide excuses as to "how hard it is to reship nowadays" for why the Amarr bring what they bring.
      However, thank you, for in many ways making my point. No, I don't expect you to derp into something for the sake of the fight.

      However, in days to come, much more then a GF will be at stake. While, the Amarr can currently get away with their "ship down to tech 1 cruisers and kick people out of your fleet or we won't fight you" attitude, their inability to fight the Minmatar except on their own terms will cause them to lose their space when Inferno hits.

  6. The problem with this is that FW provided a niche for players with a RL comes first attitude. I can dock up when my 2 year old starts crying. If I don't log on for a few days because I have a sick child at home, nothing really changes when I log back in. I think Eve is pretty well balanced right now for PVP. You have RvB, FW/Lowsec piracy, NPC 0.0, Sov 0.0, and WH. They each provide a unique experience. Adding to many consequences to FW will make it like nullsec, but without bubbles and bombs.

  7. I think you've got it wrong. We know all about risk. Minmatar outnumber us in every time zone I ever log in on. What risk is there for you?

    The other day we flipped Arzad. And then it was back in Minmatar hands less than 24 hours later. Doesn't matter what we do. We fight for a system and lose it while we sleep.

    As for last night, well, you brought logi and were in a nano-shield bc fleet. You guys know we run in cruisers. Come out in cruisers sometime and maybe we'll be more accomodating.


    1. So risk is being able to fight on your own terms whenever you want to?

      Also, you talk about the Amarr's numbers issues as if it were somehow the Minmatar's fault. Maybe you should actually recruit, or start working with other people in your militia instead of whining all the time about how we outnumber you.

    2. Do you think my fleets are ilaw only? No they are very open to militia. Youre on the side with numbers now so I don't expect you to see reason.

      Also you whine about not getting fights but the only time I see minnies out in a large group is BC up most times with logi and ewar. I will always take a fight if we have a shot of winning. Even if its like last night and our whole fleet dies. Was a nice fight Susan to bad you missed it.


    3. "Youre on the side with numbers now so I don't expect you to see reason."

      Pro logic. ;)

      As far as the rest, I could take the bait and go into details on the frequent soloing Minmatar pilots to do, as well as small gangs not involving logi, ewar, or etc., but I know you already know better. =)