Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LaoJtzu
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 07:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
The most frequent attack anyone faces in FW is a ganking pirate[s]. Presently several tiers in faction wars are basically occupied by griefing 'neuts' who have nothing to do with faction wars but they prey so heavily on both sides that neither can close the gap. Caldari were doing fine against Gallente, a boatload of 'neuts' got involved (and still are) and now the Caldari now hold 0 systems.
None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW.
It's not that the Gallente are pounding them down. It's not that the Gallente own all five possible tiers - as of this moment they own about 61%. The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).
I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers promote their love of anarchy?
If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now.
If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer! yah, they'd let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2866
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 07:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
LaoJtzu wrote:
If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer who might attack anyone at any time! yah, the major warring armies would have let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place.
...No it wouldn't... |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
259
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 07:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
477
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 10:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
So on a night when no hostile fw is in the area it's rampant pve farming with no counter whatsoever?
No where else in eve gets this "privacy". What about FW makes you all special little snowflake princesses. Don't like the neuts in your space there are options. Kill them all, let God sort em out is one of them. You know...jsut like 0.0 and wh'ers do. Make your area hostile to outsiders...less there are those of them who want to be there. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
361
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 11:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. Incorrect.
You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences.
Neutrals have the the advantage over FW pilots in FW - this needs to be addressed, no matter if you call it low sec attributes or make other excuses of non-consensual PvP.
In FW complexes, FW pilots should have an advantage over neutrals or at least equal opportunities. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Jur Tissant
Unreal Darkness
201
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 16:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Part of the risk of FW is going into low-sec. This means you get to be attacked by anyone, not just FW enemies. Furthermore, eliminating/crippling the threat of neutral players will make FW even easier when there aren't any enemy faction pilots in system.
Quote:The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).
Correct, they do not encounter these problems but they also do not get the rewards that FW brings. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6004
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 17:02:00 -
[7] - Quote
LaoJtzu wrote:None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW. It's pretty much normal. In fact... many of us older FW guys prefer there to be neuts. They add a special "chaos" factor into the mix.
LaoJtzu wrote:I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. You make it sound like people should be fighting for a higher cause.
I can say that I personally do not fight in FW for anything more than profits, convenience of targets, and "just cause." And I do not need a reason beyond that.
LaoJtzu wrote:So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers tacitly promote anarchy? What do you mean "tacitly promote?"
EVE is a libertarian's wet-dream. A dystopian future where the lives of those without cybernetic implants are a dime a dozen and easily lost and replaced... a place where master assassins take over the bodies of others and make them perform atrocities that spark wars, causing death and destruction for billions... a universe where everything has a price and the only order that really exists is the one you can enforce with your strength, cunning, money, and/or knowledge.
LaoJtzu wrote:If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now. What if we WANT them too?
LaoJtzu wrote:If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? (snip) ... the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place. Okay... first... FW players are not "soldiers" in the traditional sense. We are more akin to privateers/corsairs of old... third parties contracted by an entity to fight in their stead.
Second... because we are "third parties" certain rules apply. We can only legally attack those people and things we are commissioned to. Outside of those targets, normal rules of engagement apply. This also applies to "neutrals."
Third... why? Pirates and outlaws have been in low-sec space well before Faction Warfare was ever around. And FW mechanics were designed such that anyone can interfere in anything (as evidenced by the missions and complex beacons). Low-sec is everyone's space. Not just FW's.
Fourth... yes... conflict is supposed to arise because of this. That's the point. One neutral entity may decide that helping one side in FW is in its interest because the other side is promising to "kick them out" of the general area. This in turn creates temporary alliances that may yield some interest results in the future. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
260
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 17:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. Incorrect. You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences. Neutrals have the the advantage over FW pilots in FW - this needs to be addressed, no matter if you call it low sec attributes or make other excuses of non-consensual PvP. In FW complexes, FW pilots should have an advantage over neutrals or at least equal opportunities.
Get shot by them first then?
I thought they're a menace because they come and shoot you / disrupt your plexing, just return fire and lose no sec status. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
6004
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 17:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. Incorrect. You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences. Neutrals have the the advantage over FW pilots in FW - this needs to be addressed, no matter if you call it low sec attributes or make other excuses of non-consensual PvP. In FW complexes, FW pilots should have an advantage over neutrals or at least equal opportunities. Get shot by them first then? I thought they're a menace because they come and shoot you / disrupt your plexing, just return fire and lose no sec status. Or just shoot them first if they have a sec status below -5.0 or are suspect. There is no penalty for shooting those people. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
Iain Cariaba
262
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 17:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. Incorrect. You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences. Neutrals have the the advantage over FW pilots in FW - this needs to be addressed, no matter if you call it low sec attributes or make other excuses of non-consensual PvP. In FW complexes, FW pilots should have an advantage over neutrals or at least equal opportunities. CODE. pilots roam highsec pretty much at will with -10.0 sec rating, so why can't you? Your argument falls flat since there's no amount of negative sec rating that will stop you from docking to turn in your LP, which can then be handed off to an out of corp hauler. Disclaimer: My opinion does not necessarily reflect that of my corp or alliance. My opinion is my own, and if you don't like, that is your problem. |
|
Mag's
the united
17775
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 17:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
You already have options, but they may come with consequences. There should be no special rules for FW pilots against neutrals. It's not called FNW for a reason.
Want them dead? Shoot them.
Want out of the consequences? Don't shoot first or pick targets -5 or under.
If (and I mean if) any change should be made, then it should be for all. Make sec loss in low sec pod only. It's simple and may lead to more chaos / fun.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1268
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Normal militaries have to wait until they're shot at (usually) to fire back. You are in an area with low-enforcement presence, not a free-for-all zone. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
LaoJtzu wrote:The most frequent attack anyone faces in FW is a ganking pirate[s]. Presently several tiers in faction wars are basically occupied by griefing 'neuts' who have nothing to do with faction wars but they prey so heavily on both sides that neither can close the gap. Caldari were doing fine against Gallente, a boatload of 'neuts' got involved (and still are) and now the Caldari hold 0 systems.
None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW.
It's not that the Gallente are pounding them down. It's not that the Gallente own all five possible tiers - as of this moment they own about 61%. The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).
Minmatar versus Amarr: presently 41% for Min, about 21% for the Amarr. The other 38% of available tier - that goes to people who can't use it.
I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers tacitly promote anarchy?
If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now.
If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer who might attack anyone at any time! yah, the major warring armies would have let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place.
Maybe the FW Militias should band together and evict the pirates from the systems in question. Then the problem would be solved. |
DrysonBennington
Aliastra Gallente Federation
172
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 18:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:LaoJtzu wrote:The most frequent attack anyone faces in FW is a ganking pirate[s]. Presently several tiers in faction wars are basically occupied by griefing 'neuts' who have nothing to do with faction wars but they prey so heavily on both sides that neither can close the gap. Caldari were doing fine against Gallente, a boatload of 'neuts' got involved (and still are) and now the Caldari hold 0 systems.
None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW.
It's not that the Gallente are pounding them down. It's not that the Gallente own all five possible tiers - as of this moment they own about 61%. The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).
Minmatar versus Amarr: presently 41% for Min, about 21% for the Amarr. The other 38% of available tier - that goes to people who can't use it.
I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers tacitly promote anarchy?
If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now.
If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer who might attack anyone at any time! yah, the major warring armies would have let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place. Maybe the FW Militias should band together and evict the pirates from the systems in question. Then the problem would be solved.
Pirates attacking FW ships would receive half the security status loss and vice versa for FW attacking Pirate ships.
Pirates and FW ships attacking non hostiles or any pilot above 0.0 security status would incur the full security status loss based on the normal calculations. |
LaoJtzu
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 05:39:00 -
[15] - Quote
DrysonBennington wrote:DrysonBennington wrote:LaoJtzu wrote:The most frequent attack anyone faces in FW is a ganking pirate[s]. Presently several tiers in faction wars are basically occupied by griefing 'neuts' who have nothing to do with faction wars but they prey so heavily on both sides that neither can close the gap. Caldari were doing fine against Gallente, a boatload of 'neuts' got involved (and still are) and now the Caldari hold 0 systems.
None. That's the first time I've seen this situation in the two or so years I've been paying attention to FW.
It's not that the Gallente are pounding them down. It's not that the Gallente own all five possible tiers - as of this moment they own about 61%. The rest are lost to people who have nothing to do with Faction Wars, who exploit the availability of fighting ships, and who face none of the liabilities that FW players face (hostile NPCs, for one, no available stations for multiple jumps is another, being REQUIRED to jump through hostile space is a third).
Minmatar versus Amarr: presently 41% for Min, about 21% for the Amarr. The other 38% of available tier - that goes to people who can't use it.
I am getting the distinct feeling that the makers of this game want everyone to fight un-allied, for themselves or for money. So FW is meant to create a pool of naive newcomers/easy targets while the developers tacitly promote anarchy?
If plex gates attack hostile and un-allied ships then "neutrals" could no longer hide near them, nor camp them as they often do now.
If NPCs in plexes attack both opposing FW sides and un-allied people (which is just plain realistic... do you think any real warzone would tolerate random profiteering from armed individuals or gangs? Tank battles in the Ardennes... and 6 pirates in a random panzer who might attack anyone at any time! yah, the major warring armies would have let that slide) then the un-allied would no longer enjoy protections they don't deserve, would force them to nut up and join a side or oblige them to hunt elsewhere. Then maybe more FW battles between FW players could take place. Maybe the FW Militias should band together and evict the pirates from the systems in question. Then the problem would be solved. Pirates attacking FW ships would receive half the security status loss and vice versa for FW attacking Pirate ships. Pirates and FW ships attacking non hostiles or any pilot above 0.0 security status would incur the full security status loss based on the normal calculations.
Which is just one manifestation of the problem. Neuts/pirates are coddled in their attacks on FW players. FW players take standing hits if they defend themselves... or they can let the approaching ship with no reason to be in their area BUT malice get in to their opponents favorite range, heated up and target locked... that dog's dinner is the present choice. Attacking parties claim people unhappy with this situation are too soft but its the neuts/pirates who are getting preferential treatment, getting our behinds handed to them on a platter. That's what they don't want changed. While I can understand their desire to retain an easy/imbalanced situation it sure doesn't derive from - or prove - their courage or machismo; nor even their cunning.
The FW system should be set up to make battles between neuts and FW players at least equal, preferably a non-starter. FW players should be fighting FW players. It is Faction Warfare, not faction players playing by some rules while they're attacked by anyone and everyone who relishes the flow of relatively novice pvp'ers who are, because of the FW mechanic, either obliged to hang their behinds out deep in enemy territory on missions (that are announced solar system wide as soon as they're active) or in plexes (that are announced solar system wide as soon as they're open).
I've heard from the one FW guy that likes the arrangement as it is and I'd love to see how he does it. Seriously, he must have something down to a science or a song. I'm pretty sure most FW players don't like the way things are set up now re: neuts/pirates jumping in. I know it usually leads to me being jumped by multiple opponents, or opponents who already know exactly what ship I have (since they probed, or bounced in, scanned, ran, refitted... while I had to sit tight or sacrifice the LP and figure out if they're coming back or were just nervous nellies... you find that out when they jump back in with a tailor fitted ship to kick your behind). I would much rather fight an FW opponent nose to nose, one on one or two on two. My suggestion wouldn't gaurantie it but the odds would be much better than they are now. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 18:46:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:It's lowsec, they don't need to be hostile for you to shoot them.
I mean, one could argue that a person who doesn't own sov in null should be shot by the gates just because they don't know the secret handshake. Incorrect. You, as a FW player might still have a high security rating to return to Highsec and other professions, yet shooting a hostile player first will reduce that rating, while they, not caring at all, suffer no consequences. .
this is the same for anyone in low sec just because you are in FW should not exempt you from this just like any pilot they have the choice to let the enemy get the first shot in or shoot first and take a standing hit |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
315
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 06:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
LaoJtzu wrote:Which is just one manifestation of the problem. Neuts/pirates are coddled in their attacks on FW players. FW players take standing hits if they defend themselves... or they can let the approaching ship with no reason to be in their area BUT malice get in to their opponents favorite range, heated up and target locked... that dog's dinner is the present choice. Attacking parties claim people unhappy with this situation are too soft but its the neuts/pirates who are getting preferential treatment, getting our behinds handed to them on a platter. That's what they don't want changed. While I can understand their desire to retain an easy/imbalanced situation it sure doesn't derive from - or prove - their courage or machismo; nor even their cunning. There is no coddling of anyone in a FW plex. Assuming there are two ships in space there is your ship and your enemy and the gate limits the ships that are usable in an engagement. This is as fair a fight as you will ever see. You can either handle this situation including its consequences or you can't. Make your call and live with it but you are not entitled to LP because you bothered to show up.
Even if I did buy this, you realize that anyone with a sec status of -5.0 or less is COMPLETELY immune to this criticism. You will lose no security status for locking and firing at us first and so if you let one of us into range before you do anything you have literally no one to blame but yourself. You can warp away from me to a gate or station and the guns will help you if I do anything while the reverse is not true.
I'm sorry, you were saying something about how I get preferential treatment?
If it makes you feel any better I've even supported the idea that players ought to gain security status for fighting against outlaw players with a bonus security status gain if they destroy the ship. Would that help your problem with security losses? I doubt it.
Alternatively you could try paying the local pirate associations to ignore your side for a while, it's worked for some in the past. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
Luwc
Brodozers Inc.
202
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 07:08:00 -
[18] - Quote
http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-stupid.jpg http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1618
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
If your militia cannot deal with pirates then they are a failure of a militia.
Youa re fightign for sov.... being soberan in a place include among other things to deal with any forces againgt the law.
Man up and do your job.
BTW, there are no griefers in eve.. except people that bump a freighter for 7 hours non stop :P "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1618
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Normal militaries have to wait until they're shot at (usually) to fire back. You are in an area with low-enforcement presence, not a free-for-all zone.
if ALL militaries in world would follow this rule we would never had a single war in history :P "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 10:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Rowells wrote:Normal militaries have to wait until they're shot at (usually) to fire back. You are in an area with low-enforcement presence, not a free-for-all zone. if ALL militaries in world would follow this rule we would never had a single war in history :P
he said "normal" and "usually" cut him some slack ;p |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
769
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Your OP makes it clear that you do not understand FW game mechanics.
Warzone control depends on (A) the number of systems controlled and (B) the upgrade level of those systems. Those two factors can only be changed by militia pilots. Neutrals have absolutely zero impact on warzone control. They can't capture plexes, they can't shoot iHubs and they can't donate LP to iHubs for upgrading systems.
As for "acceleration gates attacking neutrals"... FW space is in Lowsec. It has additional features for militia pilots, but for everyone else it is simply Lowsec. Acceleration gates do not have sentry guns or the ability to "attack" players in any area of space so there is absolutely no reason for them to have this ability in FW space. Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Your OP makes it clear that you do not understand FW game mechanics.
Neutrals have absolutely zero impact on warzone control.
neutrals can have a big impact on war zone control and that is why they need to be allowed into FW space making agreements with locals in the system can be the difference between losing a system and taking it. so no they cant capture plexes shoot or upgrade Ihubs but they can keep your enemies from doing it.
|
James Nikolas Tesla
The True Patriots of New Eden
168
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 13:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
I may be missing something, OP, but why not just disallow neutrals from entering plexes? - |
Clementina
Coreli Corporation
166
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:11:00 -
[25] - Quote
Several semi-connected observations
For non-faction warfare people lowsec is just lowsec. They might be ebil pirates and gank anything, or they might be fluffy carebears and gank nothing, or they might be something in between. They are all part of the spice of Eve lowsec life. You have to live with them and beside them, just like they have to learn to live with you.
If you do a little ratting on the side you can lose some security status without going down far enough to be harassed in empire space. If someone is acting a fool you can still kill them, let their pod go if you must, and later go to a belt and kill a few NPC pirates. As long as your security status is above -2.0 you should still be good to be in high-sec.
The neutrals in the faction warfare places add content to the game of you faction warfare people. I know because a long time ago I flew for Jericho Fraction and we were neutrals killing Amarrian faction warfare people. ICly we were hated, but I think we nevertheless gave them quite a bit of fun.
You have to learn how to use the pirates. Your local pirates are your friends, even the ones that shoot at you. You know more about your friendly neighborhood pirates than your enemies do so fighting them is easier for you than for your enemies, and can maybe even have a better rapport if you work at it so you might be able to convince them to let you go about your business on occasion. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
James Nikolas Tesla wrote:I may be missing something, OP, but why not just disallow neutrals from entering plexes?
Because neutral pirates are a big part of FW they add verity and tactical options be it a gf when plexing a system with no WT for 3 jumps or crashing a fight between to militias and both FCs now have to adapt find out if they need to swap targets see what fleet they need to take car of first or even if they have to cut loses and run and wait for the two enemy fleets to weaken each other then come back in to mop up whoever is left |
James Nikolas Tesla
The True Patriots of New Eden
168
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:James Nikolas Tesla wrote:I may be missing something, OP, but why not just disallow neutrals from entering plexes? Because neutral pirates are a big part of FW they add verity and tactical options be it a gf when plexing a system with no WT for 3 jumps or crashing a fight between to militias and both FCs now have to adapt find out if they need to swap targets see what fleet they need to take car of first or even if they have to cut loses and run and wait for the two enemy fleets to weaken each other then come back in to mop up whoever is left Alright, I get your point, now, use a period or ten. - |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS
1316
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
OP, here is a multiple choice question for you.
Did CCP introduce plexes:
A) as a way for you to farm LP in safety in lowsec. B) as a venue for PvP to create content.
I'll give you a little hint. It isn't A. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Vic Jefferson
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
It is the militia's job to make FW space hostile to neutrals. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |