## Thursday, June 14, 2012

### Cheaper by the Dozen

Pretend you are baking a cake. You need 1 dozen eggs to complete the project, so you go to the store to buy them. You notice, that while you can easily pick up a dozen for \$2.00, they are also selling half dozen cartons for 75 Cents apiece.

What do you do?

Well, if you were smart you would buy two half-dozens for a total of \$1.50, instead of the 2.00 dozen. Same number of eggs, just a different distribution of cartons.

Warzone Control, in FW, is similar. Since it becomes more expensive to buy system upgrades the higher the upgrade is, it is cheaper to buy a larger number of small upgrades than a small number of high upgrades.

You can see all the glorious math here. But simply put, Purchasing 5 upgrades in one system will cost you 100,000 LP. Purchasing 2 lvls in one system, and 3 in another will cost you (25K) +(45K) = 70,000 LP. Either way, you get +5 points towards Warzone Control.

The more systems you have to distribute your points, the cheaper it becomes. (Getting 5 points from 3 systems would cost you (10K) + (25K) +(25K) = 60,000 LP.)

Conclusion:
The more space you own in FW, the cheaper it is to reach and maintain a given Warzone Control tier.

1. Just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoy reading this blog: FW is definitely getting interesting. Is there room in the Minnie militia for a couple of pirates? We will become Privateers / Corsairs for the Republic

1. Of course! I am -10.0 as are most of my corporation members and a large percentage of my alliance.

Are you entering your entire corp? Or looking for a corp to throw in a few guys?

2. Thanks for getting the maths out there to the public! This is an interesting problem you've discovered - I think most of us agree FW should have diminishing returns the more you win, you'd think it should get MORE expensive to maintain the more systems you own, not less. I'll be sure to bring this up with the developers during our discussion of warzone balancing.

3. Sorry I do not see the problem.

This is one reason why owning a system is inherently beneficial - contrary to your claim.

It does get harder to maintain the more systems you own. Why? Because you do not get rewarded for defensive plexing. Isn't that the "problem" she pointed out earlier?

Seriously you minmatar seem to have some sort of odd group think going on.

Hans I would recomend that you discuss this with some other players on some forums that have some people other than minmatar, before you take this stuff to ccp supposedly representing the players.

-Cearain

1. Can't we just have discussions about mechanics without all the racial "you minmatar" crap? Susan's most recent posts have been almost completely objective, talking about numbers not racial imbalance, and yet people are reacting as if she's publishing propaganda or trying to metagame.

Also, I am free to raise concerns and ask CCP about their design intent without having to run to the public for a popular vote on every single issue. What I refuse to do - is go to CCP with *recommendations* as to courses of action, without vetting it with the community beforehand. I think you're overly concerned here, I haven't ever just make knee-jerk proposals to CCP and I'm not about to start.

In terms of groupthink, like I said this has nothing to do with "minnie" anything. Susan is one of the few individuals approaching Faction Warfare mechanical analysis from a numerical standpoint, actually gathering statistics and researching how this has all played out, as supposed to saying "I think that feature X is bad because it hurts people like me that have been inconvenienced by this change". Systematic analysis will trump anecdotal experience any day in evaluating the success of Faction Warfare changes, I encourage all players contributing to the discussion to strive for that same goal.

I don't really care who's generating ideas or posing important questions for discussing as long as they're grounded in what's actually occurring on the server.

2. Fair enough Hans it seems you get upset when people say "you minmatar" allot more than when you see people respond to amarr concerns by calling them "cry babies."

However I would say that we are all look at this game from a certain perspective. The amarr's post inferno experience is much different than the minmatar, and Susans views are extremely biased toward the minmatar views.

Hence her ideas are simply out in left field from my perspective fighting for amarr. Let me provide some facts that I think demonstrate that:

She claims she is trying look out for the underdog. So we are lead to believe she is thinking along the lines of "hmm what changes can we make that will help the amarr get back into this war where they are down 11 systems to 59."

So Ok great, you would think she might say well lets end the station lock outs that prevent amarr from docking in over 80% of the war zone. Or maybe balance the npcs. These are the things amarr pilots are asking for are pretty much being chalked up as "crying."

But she doesn't support that. What does she come up with to supposedly balance things for the underdog? Here is what she posted on eve-o:

"We would swap offensive and defensive plexes. Therefore, plexes you run in your own space would be 'offensive' in that the rats are hostile and shoot you and you get LP, but 'defensive' in the sense you are 'protecting' your space from hostile invasions. Plexing in hostile territory would be essentially 'assisting' the NPCs, and would not result in LP payouts. (The primary reward for plexing in hostile space is taking the space.)"

So in other words minmatar would be able to farm all of their 59 systems for lp and amarr would only be able to farm 11 systems. And yes the response from the amarr is pretty much that she is crazy.

I am *amazed* that you found this close to credible as some sort of help for the underdog. This is why I think you guys need to definitely bounce some of these ideas off of others - who are actually fighting for the underdog before you talk with ccp.

From the perspective of someone who is fighting for the underdog the ideas coming from this blog are just bizzarre. So I do appreciate your posting on eve-o about this. No of course you don't have to do anything. But if you want some idea of what will help the underdog you may want to get some feed back from those who are the underdog.

3. "She claims she is trying look out for the underdog."

No, not really.

4. I don't get "upset" I just think its a waste of time to continually bury the discussion in factional partisanship. I mean you literally said Susan is biased therefore her proposals are bad for us and I will counter them. Its circular logic, and it doesn't get anyone closer to a constructive solution. It's not even a sensible reaction to an article that only contains observations and not *actual proposals*.

I understand you want to help FW, but you've got to do more than simply than line up positions on issues to one faction or another, and than use it as a litmus test to judge whether someone is biased. Is it really that hard to stop reheating the same rhetoric week after week and focus instead on discussing what is actually unfolding on Tranquility? Or to read a documentation of the math behind the mechanics without immediately assuming an ulterior motive?

4. This analogy is flawed because it assumes taking control of a system is something that can be done at no additional effort or cost - like just picking up an extra carton of eggs at the grocery store. But ideally collecting systems will require effort and cost and not be as easy as picking up an extra carton of eggs.

Interestingly this math contradicts Susan's earlier claim that owning a system has no intrinsic value. This math proves that her claim is incorrect.

-Cearain

1. LOL You deserve a gold star for both persistence and effort.

The math in this post proves that it's beneficial to have a lot of systems. Not one in and of itself, which is what I was talking about earlier.

You are talking in circles.

2. There is no question it is beneficial to have allot of systems. I agree with that. But then hans says this is a "problem". Why is it a problem that it is beneficial to have allot of systems? Should we make it so its beneficial to lose systems?

Seriously Susan your cover is pretty thin. You already posted what you propose for these alleged problems you see on eve-o. For you to claim you are just making some random observations (that happen to be the same things you claim are problems in your eve-o proposal) is pretty unconvincing.

But whatever. Why keep making these nonesensical posts where you assume taking sovereignty of a system is as easy as buying an extra carton of eggs? Why not spit out what you propose already. We may actually agree - assuming you see why your earlier proposal was horrible.

-Cearain

3. OK, this is just getting silly. If you got this far and thought that the point she was making is that its as easy to take a system as to get a carton of eggs, you've missed it entirely. I don't even know what to say.

You also completely missed my point as well. I didn't said that having a lot of systems was a problem, I said that it costing less LP to maintain high levels of WZ control might be a diminishing returns problem. Please *try* to at least address what someone is actually saying before launching into attacking someone for making nonsensical posts and horrible proposals.

You are treading way far into tinfoil land with the "your cover is thin" stuff. You're behaving as if Susan has some hidden agenda to torpedo the Amarr and is making a chain of semi-cryptic posts to secretly subvert everyone into coming around to supporting her nefarious scheme. Her posting on the forum was just one idea. Anyone can post stuff, anyone can write about other stuff, they don't have to be related.

4. I didn't say that her "point" was that it is as easy to take a system as it is to pick up a second carton of eggs.

I did say that her analogy is flawed because it makes that assumption.

There is a difference.

Here is what she said:

"Well, if you were smart you would buy two half-dozens for a total of \$1.50, instead of the 2.00 dozen. Same number of eggs, just a different distribution of cartons.

Warzone Control, in FW, is similar."

No its not similar because taking another system in faction war is not as easy as buying 2 smaller cartons of eggs instead of one larger carton of eggs.

Do you understand now?

-Cearain

5. LOL!
I never compare the ease of taking a system with the ease of purchasing eggs.

I compare the mathematics behind buying eggs with the LP costs of upgrading owned systems.

You are tilting at windmills.

6. LOL!
Yes you do. You appearantly still don't realize it even though it has been pointed out to you.

- Cearain

5. No I didn't say "susan is biased therefore her proposals are bad." I said she is biased and therefore you should get feedback from others.

I also presented numerous problems with her supposed logic. Which you appearantly didn't read, because instead you claim I am just making an argument that I never actually made.

She has made proposals in relation to what she is "observing" here. She has admitted this here:

"the solution I presented on the forums ( a solution that I will be talking about here in the future, as well as adding to) actually helps the underdog in a big way, and adds additional risk to the 'winning' side that would make it more difficult to maintain space. The fact that many Amarr instantly took the proposal as Minmatar whining for more stuff somewhat amuses me,"

Also so much for her comment that she never claimed to help the underdog.

But whatever. I think its pretty clear there is some selective hearing going on here.

You can listen to the points I and others make or not. Like you said its your choice.

1. The above was in response to hans btw.

-Cearain

2. Look, what I was saying is that you're not in any way proving that Susan isn't biased, you're just working off that assumption from the beginning.
"Susans views are extremely biased toward the minmatar views. Hence her ideas are simply out in left field from my perspective fighting for amarr." I mean, you're not even responding to the article, you're simply to trying convince me that I shouldn't trust Susan.

I read your posts, and you essentially ignored the main point of her previous article (that *individual* systems were worthless when attempting to use it to "disprove" her logic here (which was instead about the ease of collective WZ control maintenance.)

We should be free to disagree from time to time, Cearain, without this becoming all about a "lack of community representation" or a matter of "selective listening".

Again, why do you continue to assign arbitrary positions on issues to one faction or another, ignoring the fact that there are many individuals on both sides of the war that disagree about these things? Being against dockblocking doesn't mean make someone pro-underdog or pro-winning team. All Factional Warfare discussion is just sharing opinions - UNTIL someone starts putting data behind a claim. Than opinions become something else entirely.

Instead of giving Susan some credit for taking the time to document the mechanical changes for the community you try to nail her (and me as well) for being partisan the minute you get the opportunity. Its just so unnecessary and counterproductive.

3. Hans
The mechanical changes have been documented since the dev blog. She is not blogging to simply document mechanical changes she is blogging to try to argue there is a problem. You seemed to see this in your first response when you said:"This is an interesting problem you've discovered..."

Yes she is biased and comes out of left field from the perspective of someone who fights for amarr. I think I gave pretty good evidence of that. Did you read it?

But I did not say you should therefore not trust her. Nor did I say you should ignore her. I simply said that you should therefore get some more community feedback before you go to ccp. The reason I said that is because in response to her blog about this "problem" you said: "I'll be sure to bring this up with the developers during our discussion of warzone balancing."

Before we go to ccp with any sort of issue that the community cares about why don't we find out what the issue and get some community feedback?

Hans as far as you saying I don't address the issues but just make attacks do you remember this blog?:
http://www.gamerchick.net/2012/05/why-minmatar-love-fweddit.html#more

She is just calling all the amarr who are against station lockouts cry babies. Where is your righteous indignation there? Guess what? In all your comments in that blog you are arguing with amarr militia.

I like you hans. I don't think you are doing anything for personal gain or for the gain of your militia. But its hard for me to argue you aren't biased when we look at your conduct. Again I am not saying you are intentionally biased but you are too dismissive of concerns the amarr express.

As far as addressing this blog it is true your faction gets advantages when they hold several systems. That is true. Why is that a "problem"?

-Cearain

4. I didn't say Susan doesn't have an opinion. I didn't say she doesn't have ideas about Faction Warfare. I'm just saying if you're going to call out bias, back it up with some evidence of bias.

You said "I gave you evidence of this. Did you read it?" and I said, "No, you didn't. You misunderstood her points completely" (which you still do). And now you're saying "I gave you evidence of this. Did you read it?" I mean what do I say to someone who is just repeating himself?

As for station lockouts, Susan's opinion about them is more or less irrelevant. Whether or not a person likes the change is a completely separate issue from whether or not its good for Faction Warfare. Make the case that station lockout has hurt Faction Warfare, using data, and it moves beyond opinion-land, as I said before.

And please, "righteous indignation" is being melodramatic. I'm not upset. I'm just saying in a post that pretty much says some numbers and makes a factual statement, to immediately jump on us for being partisan and bias is completely unnecessary.

Just an hour ago you wrote on the forums: "The only thing underdogs have going for them now is that defensive plexing does not pay lp. The system is already horribly unbalanced to favor those who are on top. I would be hesitant to mitigate the only balancing mechanic underdogs have."

I than go on to mention one way in which the system is stacked in favor of the faction on top, and you're arguing that its no longer a problem. I mean what is someone supposed to make of this?

5. Here it is again since you didn't read it the first time.

She claims she is trying look out for the underdog. So we are lead to believe she is thinking along the lines of "hmm what changes can we make that will help the amarr get back into this war where they are down 11 systems to 59."

So Ok great, you would think she might say well lets end the station lock outs that prevent amarr from docking in over 80% of the war zone. Or maybe balance the npcs. These are the things amarr pilots are asking for are pretty much being chalked up as "crying."

But she doesn't support that. What does she come up with to supposedly balance things for the underdog? Here is what she posted on eve-o:

"We would swap offensive and defensive plexes. Therefore, plexes you run in your own space would be 'offensive' in that the rats are hostile and shoot you and you get LP, but 'defensive' in the sense you are 'protecting' your space from hostile invasions. Plexing in hostile territory would be essentially 'assisting' the NPCs, and would not result in LP payouts. (The primary reward for plexing in hostile space is taking the space.)"

So in other words minmatar would be able to farm all of their 59 systems for lp and amarr would only be able to farm 11 systems. And yes the response from the amarr is pretty much that she is crazy.

-cearain

6. "Just an hour ago you wrote on the forums: "The only thing underdogs have going for them now is that defensive plexing does not pay lp. The system is already horribly unbalanced to favor those who are on top. I would be hesitant to mitigate the only balancing mechanic underdogs have."

I than go on to mention one way in which the system is stacked in favor of the faction on top, and you're arguing that its no longer a problem. I mean what is someone supposed to make of this?"

What post of yours are you refering to when you say its stacked in favor of the faction on top? There are no posts after my post you reference so its hard to see what you are saying when you say "I than go on to mention one way in which the system is ..."

7. The fallacy in your entire claim is that you continue to assume that the only reason the Amarr are in the situation you are in is because of the game mechanics. Disregarding the fact that the Amarr lost all their systems before the changes went into effect, and disregarding the fact that the Amarr have been able to flip systems *despite* the mechanics.

What you offer no room for in your arguing is the possiblity that one of the militias is just superior. Now I'll probably take hell for saying that, but in the event that one militia just has more numbers or more coordination, CCP isn't going to consider that an issue with game mechanics. They are committed to Faction Warfare being a sandbox where clear winners and clear losers can exist.

If you want station docking, or any other mechanic for that matter - reversed or rolled back, the burden is on us as players to prove to CCP that the *ONLY* reason the Amarr are unable to make progress is cause of station lockout. Right now, I can't do that. If you can, great - get me all the evidence you have and I'll make the case to CCP.

What I simply can't do is say "Look CCP, they're losing, it must be the mechanics so lets change them until both sides are equal again".

6. Hans says:

"You are treading way far into tinfoil land with the "your cover is thin" stuff. You're behaving as if Susan has some hidden agenda to torpedo the Amarr and is making a chain of semi-cryptic posts to secretly subvert everyone into coming around to supporting her nefarious scheme. Her posting on the forum was just one idea. Anyone can post stuff, anyone can write about other stuff, they don't have to be related."

She has already stated what her proposal is hans. Its on eve-o. The issues raised in these blogs were already given as reasons to support them.

-Cearain

1. And whether it is or not, that doesn't mean that what she says is automatically wrong.

2. Right no one claimed that.

It simply shows that her motivations for this blog have been explicitly stated. My mentioning this is not any sort of tinfoil hattery.
-Cearain

7. I love Susan's comment-section more than Susan's blog. <3

8. Hans says:

"As for station lockouts, Susan's opinion about them is more or less irrelevant. Whether or not a person likes the change is a completely separate issue from whether or not its good for Faction Warfare. Make the case that station lockout has hurt Faction Warfare, using data, and it moves beyond opinion-land, as I said before"

First of all this blog contains absolutely no data to back anything up. It is just a faulty analogy. Yet you post how you are going to bring this blog up with ccp.

As far as data that supports or condemns station lock outs, you know that is impossible to produce. CCP made too many changes at once for any rational person to explain this or that data based on that one change. There are too many confounding variables.

That is why your whole idea of "lets wait and see" was a bad one from the start.

Of course, I could say well minmatar are gaining more people in thier militia faster than amarr due to the station lockout and the war is remaining lopsided due to the station lockout. This is a likely theory. However we won't get any *data* to support that because the minmatar militia growing faster than amarr and the war remaining lopsided might be explained by the other other changes.

I have heard you, like many who like to trumpet station lock outs, talk about how many kills there are now. As if every kill since may 1st is due solely to the station lock outs. However there were also huge economic consequences brought to the plexing war that can more than accoount for that increase in kills. So those in favor of the lock outs don't have any actual data to support there claim either.

You know this. We have been through this both on forums and in numerous private e-mails. Why do you keep bringing this up?

-Cearain

9. Dude, Cearain. Once again with the "You who like to trumpet station lockouts". Since when did I say station lockouts are great and have saved us? You already promised to stop with that nonsense once already, I still haven't made that statement, and yet you're back at it again.

You are obsessed with station lockouts. You think everyone else is obsessed with station lockouts. Very few people are actually obsessed with station lockouts.

Also - "wait and see" wasn't "my" idea anyways. :-P *It was the only option we had*, cause CCP made up their mind, and wasn't going to change it till they saw results.

1. Hans says:

"Now I'll probably take hell for saying that, but in the event that one militia just has more numbers or more coordination, CCP isn't going to consider that an issue with game mechanics. They are committed to Faction Warfare being a sandbox where clear winners and clear losers can exist."

Ok first of all coming from someone who admitted they rarely even did any plexing before the patch its sort of lame for you to generalize and claim your faction was superior. The occupancy game leading into inferno was something of a side show in faction war. It was and it still is mainly a silly pve mechanic. People will continue to get alts out there to take plexes. But whatever that is a different issue that I believe you are working to fix and we are on the same page.

To face the issue you raise more directly the problem with this idea of just having clear winners and losers (without any mechanics that help the losers stage a comeback) is becuase faction war will just end. They won't have a continuing war. Its like telling white noise "the alliance can't disband and you cant fight for any territory other than in branch." This is basically what you are saying when you apply this null sec mentality to faction war. Now who is going to join white noise?

Right now the thing that will help those "clearly losing" stage a comeback is the lack of lp for defensive plexing. Yes it must be annoying for susan, and likely other minmatar, right now because they want to be able to take over systems and farm them like in null sec. That you can't do that might rub you the wrong way. But its the only reason amarr has any hope to come back.

Hell if that weren't case i would join minmatar. Why choose the side that makes no isk instead of the side that makes crazy amounts of isk? I mean I am not a rper.

But to be clear I am not against having clear winners and losers. I think the economic consequences built into the faction war system are ok. (yes I think making amarrs lp 4xs more expensive then pre inferno is a bit over the top but I'm fine with the crazy huge amount of isk minmatar can make) But there also must be something built in to encourage one side to stage a comeback. The *only* mechanic in this system is the no lp for defensive plexing mechanic.

If you get paid lp for defensive plexing and nothing else changed to help the amarr I would seriously just start getting my standings up.

The no lp for defensive plexing is a very smart mechanic to bring balance. 1)The lp store benefits should go to the people who actually plexed to get the faction into a winning situation. Not those who join after it is already there. This is how underdogs will fight back. If the incentive is just to join the side that already is clearly winning then it will remain lopsided.

2) it allows the losing side to start contesting several systems and build them up so that they can then have a huge dramatic push to try to take the advantage away. Its true my fellow amarr have not really taken advantage of this yet. But eventually they will start to understand and when they do the minmatar will be forced to to allot of button spinning for no pay - or they will lose allot of systems.

-Cearain

10. Hans

I am not sure what post of mine you think "assume[s] that the only reason the Amarr are in the situation you are in is because of the game mechanics."

As far as proof of what station lock out is good or bad - like I said - its impossible to prove with any scientific sort of data. There were too many changes at once to be able to determine cause and effect.

Like I said you have to use logic and reasoning. Consider this argument:
Premise 1) If one side can't dock in over 80% of the war zone their ability to fight will be hindered.
Premise2) Amarr can't dock in 80% of the warzone.
Conclusion: Amarr's ability to fight is hindered.

If you agree with both premises then you must agree with the conclusion. Do you agree with both premises? This should not be so hard to convince ccp.

I guess as to whether the no docking change was good or not we can look at who was effected by the change and their reaction. From my review of the forums those amarr corps that were effected by the station lock out think it sucks. Fweddit is new so they weren't effected at all. The other three factions lost none of their bases so they weren't affected by it so they claim it’s not so bad. So people who weren't affected by the change don't seem to mind it but those who were do mind it.

-Cearain

11. I hate typing in these comment sections. I put my comments in the wrong damn places. Hopefully you, dear reader, can understand what I was addresing.

-Cearain

12. Cearain,
This post has nothing to do with station lockout. Even so, your logic is flawed on several levels.

You are ultimately trying to show that station lock out is a bad mechanic. Therefore, that is ultimately your conclusion.

You then try to deduce this by saying the Amarr's ability to fight is hindered. Ironically, your 'proof' of this is by reading the forums and noticing that the Amarr don't like the station lock out.

To sum it up, you are arguing that the mechanic is bad because it hurts the Amarr, and you know this because the Amarr don't like it. This is not logic, this is what you call bias. Or whining. ;)

You respond to people pointing out the faultiness of your logic by restating your opinion in a different way. Or you make arguments toward something unrelated, instead. When backed into a corner, you make emotional accusations that often have nothing to do with the discussion, and are completely unfounded.

Like a wounded animal, you attempt to inflict pain, rather then make rational logical argument to espress a clear point. This is seen frequently when you lash out at Hans for "not listening to the player base" when it's obvious you are just frustrated that he has pointed out obvious flaws in your reasoning.

While it has been diverting to 'spar' with you, it is ultimately futile due to the fact that you are irrational. My one regret in allowing this conversation to go on with you, is that it may have stifled real conversation from people who might actually have something new, and/or useful to say.

13. Susan says this about my argument on station lock outs:

"You then try to deduce this by saying the Amarr's ability to fight is hindered. Ironically, your 'proof' of this is by reading the forums and noticing that the Amarr don't like the station lock out."

My "proof" that station lock outs hinders the amarrs ability to fight, was actually a deductively valid argument. It had 2 premises that if you accept them as true means the conclusion is true.

What is nice about people who make logical arguments is you can identify where you disagree. Do you agree that premise 1 and premise 2 are true? If not tell me which premise you don't accept. If you agree they are true, then do you see why the conclusion must also be true?

My "proof" was simply to establish that the station lock outs make it more difficult for the amarr - the losing side - to make a comback. This was in response to hans's post suggesting that I somehow had a burden of proof along these lines.

Perhaps after you read through the argument you will actually agree with it. At that point you might want to argue that its good that the losing side can't make a comeback or something along those lines. I don't know. It seems to me that the winning side has plenty going for it already under these mechanics. But perhaps you think they need even more advantages - hence your eve-o proposal.

But that the station lockouts make it more difficult for the losing side to make a comeback is pretty easy to see.

-Cearain

1. Grats, you’ve stated the obvious. Your “deductive reasoning” is about as useful as looking up and saying “the sky is above me and whats above me is blue therefore the sky is blue” that’s not prof of anything at all.

We all know it hinders us to not be able to dock. The issue is whether it keeps us from fighting and making progress. And we’ve been taking systems steadily, while you keep forum warrioring. Soon we’ll make a comeback and those of us that have been saving our LP will make bank.

Seriously, get out and help instead of trying to “fix” everything. You don’t speak for all of us, you’re just reheating pseudo-intellectual bullshit that makes all sound like we’re helpless cause we can’t dock in every system. Big deal. Come make some BIG PLAYS instead of arguing with these two is a waste of time and you know it (especially if they’re schooling you)

I remember when your catchphrase was “OMG 16X MULTIPLIER” before that it was “forcing nullsec down our throats” . You’ve also ran with “ZOMG BLOBS” as your issue of the week, now you’re on to “No LP for defensives plexing is sacred don’t change it”. Youre as fickle as a teenage girl just pick an issue and make good points or just come have fun instead of this crap

2. Mr. Anonymous,
I'm glad you agree with my conclusion. It appearantly wasn't obvious to everyone. But yes I agree it is pretty obvious. I would be interested to see if Hans and Susan agree that the no docking rule is hindering the amarr's ability to fight.

Once/If they admit that obvious conclusion we could then move on to the question of whether a mechanic that hinders the underdogs ability to fight is a good mechanic or not.

If I get the urge to orbit a button in back systems, I will actually play the game a bit more.

But right now I don't think actually engaging this bad mechanic in earnest is worth my time. Yes I think it still needs work before it is even playable.

Sure, I will go out and use a plex to get some pvp - just like I did before inferno. But the actual occupancy war is still just a silly pve activity.

If you enjoy it great. Get those alts out there, and win win win. Feed the minmatar systems they can farm right next to their bases. Your doing great!

Spend a bunch of lp to see if you can get to level 2. Yay! Now watch as the minmatar take that lp away. Thats not dumb at all.

Oh yeah and don't speak out against bad proposals like having lp for defensive plexing. Just continue to shut up and play. See what happens to the game.

In the meantime pardon me for not really caring what is happening under the current mechanics. As I think the main issue is to get this mechanic to be something that is worth playing. Until that happens I am not really interested in it. Sorry.

-Cearain

3. Undocking with a half fit ship would also hinder the Amarr's ability to fight. But, undocking in such a state would be their own fault, wouldn't it?

But I suppose instead of fixing the issue (ie: putting more modules on their ship) they could always sit there and cry, and rage at CCP for ruining their game.

14. Susan:

"Undocking with a half fit ship would also hinder the Amarr's ability to fight. But, undocking in such a state would be their own fault, wouldn't it?

But I suppose instead of fixing the issue (ie: putting more modules on their ship) they could always sit there and cry, and rage at CCP for ruining their game."

Right continuing the folly I see. Taking over a system is as easy as fitting a module on your ship - or picking up an extra carton of eggs.

Keep crying that you aren't able to farm lp by running plexes in systems that your enemies can't even dock in. Or just move to null sec already.

-Cearain