...There is always a reason to be on the losing side -- Isk

Wow good to see that the crying and whining is still going 30 pages strong....

Can you give any reason why Caldari or Amarr would have more than 0-2 low-sec stations before expansion hits because they can all be flipped well before expansion arrives?

fighting has diminished even more and usually 50 of the 100 of players in militia channel are mission running, with another 40 afk.
Currently FW is worthless. Plexing is worthless, the PvP is almost non existent, and now markets have been so saturated by faction items that even LP is nearly worthless (10m slicer...lol)..

So what else he then suggested with his response to X gal than "I am glad this system benefits gallente so much they can become so smug that it enables farming isk from opposing militias who will never again be able to rally the numbers needed since all isk starved puppies join the outnumbering side".

Since this seems to represent CCP's official stance in regards to FW, is it any wonder why people are leaving it entirely in droves or joining the sides which currently (and will have it for all eternity now) have the upper hand?

EDIT: And CCP decided to shaft caldari a bit more by nerfing merlin...as if it needed it.

That's what I was thinking of. What is still missing is the aspect of 'diminishing return' mentioned by the Devs. Looks like this is not implemented yet, so the pendulum has no real momentum to swing back for the losing side.

Time will tell.

Bit like Chatgris boasting elsewhere "I went to fight eve-uni because they fight, dont blob and dont smack in local like Caldari". Then looking at his combat history it's full of "t3 alt boosted nano drake kills t1 fitted frigates" fights. So I quess that says enough about human nature.

LOL!! My comment had nothing to do with the Gallente or Caldari specifically, I'm just saying that the very notion of a winning faction renting mission hub systems back to the loser for mission purposes is the kind of crazy gameplay possibilities that could emerge from the new system.

The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick.

WeGÇÖve already seen how the factional LP stores vary in value depending on the easy of farming the LP with the current imbalances in level 4 missions. Factions like my own with incredibly simply mission running get farmed to death, and our LP store has one of the lowest isk / LP ratios around as a result. The markets will eventually shift according to the success of the faction, and a losing faction will soon see higher demand for its LP store offerings than ever before. The losing side will be locked out of being able to run missions, and must PvP their way back to earn that privilege. In the mean time, the losing side will be much more likely to hold onto their LP, further reducing the amount of that LP storeGÇÖs offerings that reach the market, and further driving up the price.

Eventually, SOMEONE will realize the value of these offerings and intervene, that is the nature of EVE players. An organized group can take major advantage of a losing faction by making a fast, hard, push to reclaim territory, reinforce systems, and cash out all the LP they earn along the way at once they achieve the cheapest possible rates. They can than quickly dump those items on the market while the prices for those items are still at their peak market value, making an obscene profit before they start falling again. This is just one of a thousand ways the system can be gamed and advantages can be gleaned by joining and assisting a losing faction to recover their space.

Who knows whether this is how it will play out or whether we'll see something completely different, the point is that rather than just handing players cookies for losing, or arbitrarily reducing the motivations to win in the first place, the developers are specifically keying these changes to the market, so that it becomes a true sandbox where we decide what the motivation is to fight back, not CCP.

The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick.

Im getting more and more to the point were i would actually prefer a delay of the FW "features". There are still so many bugs and missing features on SISI. They managed to implement consequences and visiability (UI guys did a great job here) but were is the reward and the better gameplay? Everything looks unfinished and in some parts even crude.

-

Im also quite curious what Hans did or could have done over the last week's. It looks like he has to act as CCP's buffer at the moment and has no influence at all. Just to make it clear, i do not want to accuse him (i know there is a NDA), but dude start working! All this, im sure you will like it, they will adjuste it in the future, ... is complete bullshit. Do what you can now, people are sick of waiting for CCP to realise they did something wrong.

This thread is full of idiotic prophetic rambling from raging FW carebears. Thank you Hans for some logical reason.

Why wouldn't a losing empire pay its pilots more LP for the scalps of the invaders? Giving an LP modifier for enemy kills would encourage the underdog to keep fighting.

Enemy lockout, tangible market rewards, and safer missioning are plenty motivation to keep pressing the advantage.

BTW, does the LP reward for warzone control also apply to kills?

Otherwise, weGÇÖd see pilots enlist in the losing faction just to continue farming for the items that are lucrative on the market, avoiding pew pew just like happens today. This way, if someone looking at the markets decides to enlist in the losing faction to grind for LP, they have to grind it through PvP methods first (player kills and plexing). This is a MAJOR improvement and solves a problem that Faction Warfare pilots have been complaining about for quite some time.

Yes, it does.

IGÇÖm sorry, but I completely disagree on handing a losing faction safe missioning. You seem to have missed one of the communityGÇÖs major gripes about the Faction Warfare system, that mission farming (at least until the NPCGÇÖs get balanced) takes pilots away from the PvP which is supposed to be the primary appeal. I absolutely LOVE that in the current set of mechanics, PvP-free mission running is a privilege, not a right.

just a thought.. most militias have alot of -10 players due to ccps falure to fix neutral remote reps and all the other stupid things that cause fleets to lose sec

... shouldnt there be a set capitol system in losec that cant be captured so those players are not totaly screwed if there miltia does happen to lose all its space.

You seemed to have misread my post or I seemed to have mistyped it. The safer mission obviously goes to those who have locked out the enemy from those systems. I was saying that is is indeed a motivating factor, but you need give the losing side some motivation to fight back, especially when outnumbered and no chance of taking a system back. Hence, why I think giving more LP to the winning side from PvP kills is an awful mistake.

i dont see this happening as the LP cost of them will be silly due to ccp implementing penalties to the loseing faction in the form of 4x the lp cost for items. this idea of theres is going to be a game breaker and will cause more people to leave miltias and FW than it will bring in...( i still support bonuses to lp gain for the winning faction BTW)

Why would someone not just farm L4 missions in hi sec and pay the same price for the faction ships as the losing side?

Wouldn't some really good, small PvP corps be more inclined to join the winning side for the cheaper ships in which they will fly themselves?

The thing that many players are struggling with is that they want to see specific mechanics that directly incentivize losing, thus giving them reason to want to stick around and fight from behind. CCP would much prefer to allow the sandbox to govern these incentives, allowing emergent market behavior to do the work rather than an arbitrary gimmick

CCP isnGÇÖt asking me to buffer them at all, itGÇÖs just completely useless for me to go around pitchforking on the forums for issues that I know are being worked on.

Because those high sec Level 4 LP's are a fixed value, and can never be made MORE valuable through a coordinated PvP campaign. LP earned in FW, however, can buy a substantially greater number of items if you work with your faction to drive the LP store cost back down and cash them out at that point in time.

You guys are screwed. Technical evaluation.

But they were clueless enough to get ganked by boosted nano-drake rather than Caldari who already know my tricks and dont waste ships stupidly so the long-haired hippie from Nennamaila could feel good about himself