|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
203
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 04:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
There have been many good suggestions, especially the ones tying upgrades to station lockouts.
As for nuetrals having access to upgrades.... don't like it. They did nothing to get the upgrades. They should reap any rewards. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
203
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 09:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Post Fixed. Why should nuetrals have access to any of it? They did nothing to secure the system? Only thing I can think of is that they may help defend the system if they reap the benefits (?).
Maybe FW players could rent out upgraded space? Would it be worth it? |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
204
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 13:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Grey Azorria wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Post Fixed. Why should nuetrals have access to any of it? They did nothing to secure the system? Only thing I can think of is that they may help defend the system if they reap the benefits (?).
Maybe FW players could rent out upgraded space? Would it be worth it? So low sec industry having an advantage over high sec industry is a bad thing? If the benefits are good enough, then low sec might not be 'dead' anymore
I meant would it be worth it for a FW corp to spend 150k LP initially, and then probably 10-50k lp / day to keep the system upgraded so that neutrals can farm? Would the nuetrals be willing to pay 10-50 million isk/ day (converting LP to isk at 1000 isk/LP) to rend a low sec system? Probably not.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
208
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 21:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
If improving low sec is the goal, then why provide these improvements only to FW space? |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 23:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Some ideas, not necessarily in any order:
- Bring back the cyno jammer, if polished enough to be shot down by neutral third parties. Fanfest taught us it is a very tricky move, so we want to hear from all interested parties here
- Move station deny docking from being automatic when a system is captured to something that only happens when the enemy upgrade a system to level X
- Provide science, manufacturing time reduction bonuses to further encourage industry in low-security space
Speaking of which, how do you feel about neutrals having access to your precious upgrades? As explained in the blog, the original goal was to promote an industrial backbone in low-security space, but you may feel differently. Thanks for your time! Getting back to this.
System Upgrades: IMO, any efficiency gained through system upgrades pales in comparison to the cost of pumping 10k to 20k LP into a given system every day. So, neutrals will still not be able to create an industrial backbone in low security space.
The only real current benefit to system upgrades is for cashing out LP. Therefore, systems will be upgraded in spurts as large groups of players cash out their LP savings accounts all at once.
Cynojammer: The only reason players at fanfest were opposed to cynojammers is that their null alliance will not be able to afk-control high value low sec moons. There I said it. They would actually have to live in system and defend them with real ships instead. Any other reason - like reduced logistics capabilities (which, btw, is not true because there are alternate routes outside of FW space) - is a diversion.
Denial of Docking Rights: Denial of docking rights for only when system is upgraded was a brilliant suggestion since it gives players a means of evacuating their stuff when the other side is much stronger than they are. If one side wants to lock down another side, it will be at great cost since they will have to continually pump LP into the system. Perhaps L0 - denial of agents, L1 - Denial of services, L2 - Denial of docking rights. Whatever is appropriate. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
232
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 22:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
Cearain wrote:But giving more advantages to the defenders, will be giving more advantages to the winning side.
I would reprhase it. Giving more advantages to the defender leads to fewer fights because the attacker has to think he has a chance before he does anything. It's the attacking side that initiates pew and therefore they should get as much of an advantage as possible. At least err on the side of helping the attacker.
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
278
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Deen Wispa wrote:When a system goes vulnerable, it should no longer spawn plexes for people to continue farming. There is a Gallente system that has been vulnerable for a week and WTs continue to farm it into perpetuity because of the spawns. No one cares to defensive plex it because it's a stationless system that leads into a nullsec entrance. Conversely, I can understand why the enemy doesn't want to capture it either. But if this is the case, then plexes shouldn't continue to spawn. Gotta hand it to the Caldari, that is a bloody genius way of gaming the system .. hahahahahahahaha. Everybody was thinking about doing this. The Caldari were the first to implement it. |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:We've been talking a lot about diminishing returns issues, the "problem" (or lack thereof) regarding defensive plexing being boring and unrewarding, and about ways to reduce "snowballing".
One observation that has been made is that since WZ control points are easier to obtain by upgrading systems to level 1 upgrades instead of upgrading a single system to level 5, this essentially means that the factions that have the most systems have a much easier time maintaining their WZ control point level through LP investment.
In other words, the Minmatar, who own 60 systems instead of the 10 for the Amarr, can easily replace lost WZ control points at a cheap LP rate by reinforcing backwater systems. The Amarr on the other hand, have to invest all of their systems all the way to level 5 (costing more LP / WZ control point gained) and even that only works if they have enough systems to begin with.
Does anyone feel this is working well, or should it cost more LP investment to gain WZ control points as you continue to win and win and win? Is it fair that the more systems you own the cheaper it is to maintain your LP store price point?
Won't matter. The issue is pretty straight forward:
Minmatar: Clear tangible benefit to continually upgrade system: They get it up to 61% (usually no higher) and then cash out. There are enough plexing alts cashing in all the time to make this work.
Amarr: ZERO benefit to upgrading system: They dont upgrade their systems because there is no concrete reason to do so. It will always be below 20% and therefore why bother?
On the other front (for some perspective): Gallente don't upgrade their systems on a regular basis because the upgrades will quickly be eaten away by Caldari afk plexing alts. Gallente have tried to do this in spurts. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded.
Caldari - I imaging Caldari are similar to Gallente with the exception that upgrades are slowly eaten away by semi-skilled afk plexing alts in an incursus. They have upgraded in spurts rather than consistently as well. There is no tangible benefit to keeping systems continually upgraded yet. If they continue to steamroll plexes they will likely have a reason soon (once they get to 61 systems).
Also: Look at "Willingness to Upgrade" versus "Quality of NPC rats" (how hard it is to take a plex). Minmatar > Caldari > Gallente > Amarr |
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
What, in your opinion, is the best solution to dealing with the Caldari / Gallente situation in the long run? Is it primarily an issue of the size of the warzone, or a problem with speedfarmers? You're in a better place to advise on this warzone than myself.
Also - in your quality of NPC rat chart - is that taking Ewar into consideration, or is that how you see the rat quality once their E-war has been removed, which is what is going to happen in Inferno 1.1?
E-WAR Removal: The only e-war that affects capping a plex solo, from what I understand, is web+target painter on Minmatar rats. None of the other e-war affects anybody's ability to tank a plex.
Once e-war is removed, Minmatar plexes will be on the same order as Caldari plexes, and Amarr plexes will be on the same order as Gallente: Cap Gallente/Amarr - Regular speed tanker Cap Caldari/Minmatar - Self repping incursus - You may see Minmatar upgrade level go down since plexing for Amarr will be easier.
Long Term Issue w.r.t System Upgrades: System upgrades should be removed from the game since upgrades are not leading to any tangible conflict.
Upgrades were obviously not put into this version of FW as any sort of reward for occupancy. The rewards suck and are for non-FW industrialists, and they are easily destroyed through a little bit of plexing. Rewards were put into FW to give people an incentive to defensive plex to protect their LP store bonuses. However, it is easier (and more fun) to simply re-fill the upgrade bucket (if there is a tangible reason to do so) than it is to defend a backwater system.
* Threat of getting kicked from a home system is leading to conflict. Most fights. * Threat of enemy getting foothold in a station system is leading to conflict. Some fights. * Threat of enemy securing non-station system is non-existent. These systems are flipping back and forth all the time. Conflict arises because people are out in space. A few fights. * Protection of upgraded systems? NO FIGHTS. Nobody is patrolling a region to protect their upgrades. Too boring.
If CCP really wants to have Gallente/Caldari upgrade their systems, then it needs to make them "easier to defend" which means removing less LP/offensive plex capped. Once you go down that route, then you might as well make the upgrade value equal to 1+ 5 * (100 - the percent contested)/100, and remove all this LP bunker stuffing nonsense. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
454
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 16:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cynojammer affect on 0.0 logistics is nil. 0.0 alliances can find plenty of non-FW locations to use as jump points and will likely do so to remove risk.
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 20:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gabriel Darkefyre wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Altivs Obvisivs wrote:Maybe I've missed it and appologise if I did, but will PoS fuel cost reductions apply only to FW corps/alliances or will it apply to everyone within a system? I hope it applies to EVERYONE in the system. I want more reasons for people to live and work in lowsec (and move industrial operations there - creating food for pirates) and I want more reasons for people to want to participate in FW. No, I don't care if my enemy saves fuel cost in my upgraded system. By all mean, come on in and set your POS up. Personally, I'd hope for it to only apply to Militia Members of the Faction holding Sovereignty. Anyone else should not be affected by the Upgrades. If someone wants to take advantage of the Rewards of an upgraded FW System, then they should need to sign up to the Militia and be exposed to the Inherent Risks of being in the Militia (Ships and Structures become a legitimate target to the opposing 2 Militias, for one) And more targets is a good thing, right? The argument for allowing everybody to use upgrades is a little weak. If getting more targets (err... players) into low sec is a goal with these upgrades, then CCP should simply apply these upgrades to all low sec systems.
But I guess FW is a testbed as well. If it works in FW space, then they can implement some sort of upgrade mechanic in all of low sec ,NPC 0.0, and 0.0 with these upgrade features available as well.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 20:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mackenzie Ayres wrote:CCP really needs to consider risk vs rewards for FW because even after these changes they provide FW pilots with all the risks, while nuetrals and others benefit from the upgrades provided, which now includes POS fuel savings!
Mac The only reason I will put LP into the hub is for increased LP payouts from running plexes in the future. A sort of FW LP multiplier. And, tbh, this might be more than enough for FW players. The upgrades are nearly meaningless to most FW players (except for the cynojammer for corps with caps). |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 21:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mackenzie Ayres wrote: Yes, the ability to produce T2 at half the time without the requirement of a POS is of no interest to anyone in FW. With nuetals having access to the beneifts, all manufacturing, copy and material research slots will be full of nuetral jobs! Mac
I stand corrected. It's only of no interest to players like me who have no real industrial skills. There's plenty of FW players out there who know how to do that stuff. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
456
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 22:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
Quote: Part of the fix is to increase LP amounts required to upgrade a system to the new numbers mentioned below:
* Level1: 40,000 * Level2: 60,000 * Level3: 90,000 * Level4: 140,000 * Level5: 200,000 * Buffer: 300,000
Quick Math. 120 plexes to make a system vulnerable. 10k LP/plex @ 10% degradation = 120k LP max LP degradation if the system is not defended. 300k - 120k = 160k. No further LP upgrades = L4 until the other side decides to run a bunker busting fleet. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
462
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 14:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
I don't think the LP gained from missions will have the same multiplier as plexes. Therefore, the "New missions" line in Susan's blog should be "flat", right?
@CCP - Will LP payouts for missions be affected by Warzone control level?
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
462
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 15:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Perhaps it's time to remove getting LP for doing sister militia sites as well. You could still get standing increases, and help the other side with their warzone control, but you'd stop making your own LP doing it.
You don't get standings increase. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
463
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
One more thing: The will of players to defensive plex is larger than it first appears. However, getting completely overwhelmed by plexing alts made it impossible to make any real progress and therefore people stopped doing it. So anyways, with these changes I suspect it will be a very stagnant map. So, bottom line - cut down the LP for defensive plexing to something supplemental - not farmable.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
467
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 15:51:00 -
[18] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:iulixxi wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: CYNO JAMMER As you can see above, the Cyno Jammer is back with a vengeance. However we took into consideration the feedback we received during Fanfest and various community channels, and it would work as mentioned below. This will impact GÇÿsomeGÇÖ alliances ability to do logistics from Empire to 0.0 GǪ have you considered this? E I think that was the idea. I am sure all Militias will happily accept payment(s) to ensure your logistics are unaffected. I actually looked at this. NO 0.0 alliance will be affected by this once they move their cyno alts. There many non-FW systems available for use as jump points to 0.0. If you disagree, then provide an example and we'll try to come up with an alternative.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Why everyone thinks this is incentivized I'm not sure, it makes more sense for the winner to just continue fighting the war straight up and taking plexes offensively rather than to play this back and forth farming game for a fraction of the income. False. The winning side wants to make sure it still has plexes to run, so it will run up the few remaining systems to 90%, and then use plexing alt to run them back down to 75%. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Really, after 80% warzone control, then what? Why would you bother capturing the last 20%?
The majority of the reward for defensive plexing should be to hold onto system upgrades and warzone control, not LP. If LP is involved, then defensive plexing should require something more than an unfit frigate.
@CCP, will defensive plexing be under the same LP multipliers as offensive plexing?
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:X Gallentius wrote:The majority of the reward for defensive plexing should be to hold onto system upgrades and warzone control, not LP. If LP is involved, then defensive plexing should require something more than an unfit frigate.
I absolutely agree. That's why I'm encouraging them to have the plex spawn determined by the player inside the plex, so that defensive plexers don't get immunity from NPC's and have to deal with the same spawn threat as offensive plexing. Excellent, we agree. No LP for defensive plexing (until they make it so unfit frigs can't complete them). |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Even after minmatar flipped enough systems to tier 5 some amarr militia mates said they wanted to keep our alts in minmatar to farm plexes. I had one and only one argument I could use. That was due to no lp for defense, we can plex for our own side and hit a tier 5 cashout.
Tell me what should I tell my militia-mates who say "hey after winter lets keep our alts in minmatar and plex for 2xs as much isk." Should I tell them "No don't do that! Be happy you are making half the isk of our enemies!" ??
What is the argument to plex for the losing side hans?
The real question they are asking is this: "Where can my alts farm to make the most isk with least effort?" The answer could be Minmatar FW, Low Sec L4/L5 missions, High Sec L4 missions, Incursions, 0.0 ratting, Exploration, Industry whatever. The potential answer is not limited to Minmatar FW.
You tell your corpmates this: "Do what you want with your alts. They're alts. If you want to contribute to Amarr winning FW Occupancy, then get them the hell out of the Minmatar Militia, get them into a Minmatar corp as a spy, or run Minmatar FW missions and crash their market!" |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Cearain wrote: But your answer is pretty weak. Yes "it could be" plexing for the enemy. We know that plexing for the enemy will pay over 2xs as much as plexing for our own side.
On a side note: Would you undermine your faction for: 1. 1% increase in rewards 2. 10% increase in rewards 3. 50% increase 4. 100% increase 5. 200% increase 6. 1000% increase?
This reminds me of: "We've already established that you're an isk *****, we're just trying to set the price". Your price is apparently at most 2x (100% increase).
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 21:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cearain wrote:But to answer your question the current tier system allows people to make just as much isk by plexing for their own militia. Han's proposal forces underdogs to always take less isk if they want to plex for their own militia. This is statement is false. The weaker plexing side on either front has not cashed in at Tier 5.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 23:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Cearain wrote:We know it will still be a mostly pve mechanic. Anything you propose will be a PVE mechanic when one side decides to not show up for a fight.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
469
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 02:41:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cearain wrote:So I give 7 pieces of solid evidence that players follow the isk. And your response is to make a technical complaint about one of them.
Many of us left QCATS because we wanted to fight under the Gallente banner. So, what this shows is that some players will do what they want, and others will do what they want as well.
BTW, most of the Gallente corporations and alliances have stayed with Gallente FW even though Caldari have the clear plexing advantage (even though it is more "efficient" to join Minmatar FW).
And to be fair to QCATS, they were a large contributor in griefing Nulli, and they are a large contributor to Gallente FW in the Gallente/Caldari theater. AND they aren't doing it with their alts. They are plexing with their mains killing more people than any other FW corp. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
471
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 16:07:00 -
[26] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote: By shifting farmers over to defensive plexing, there's a very likely danger that the meta will swing all the way from one extreme to the other. The front will be so stagnant that no one will want to offensive plex in any meaningful way, and system occupancy will grind to a halt. If people can't win, they won't want to play, and we'll be back to the bad old days when no one cared about plexing or system occupancy.
+1. This is exactly what will happen.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
477
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 18:39:00 -
[27] - Quote
Kalicor Lightwind wrote:I would like to see heavily defended systems be immune from the bleed effect They are, aren't they? Defensively plex the system and dump lp back into hub. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
479
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 15:42:00 -
[28] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:At the higher tiers a side will need to pay 4x the normal price of upgrades. If you're at Tier 4 or 5, then you also get a multiplier on your defensive plexing LP. In fact, you ought to be making much more isk defensive plexing than the other guy who is offensive plexing with his militia at Tier 1 or 2.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
491
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 06:57:00 -
[29] - Quote
The upgrade feature of FW just seems way too complicated, nonsensical, and doesn't benefit the people who actually do the work on the ground. FW is supposed to be about pvp - not low sec industry. You shouldn't have to pump LP into a hub to get certain benefits - too mechanical.
Benefits should be on an individual level based on how much that player has helped defend a system. These benefits should decay with time if there is no activity. And finally these benefits should help with pvp oriented activities - repairs, marginal pvp boosts in that individual system, etc... These benefits should be AUTOMATIC - dumping LP into a hub is immersion breaking, just like timers are immersion breaking. They make no sense.
So: 1. Benefits should be pvp related. 2. Benefits should be applied to individual pilots 3. Local Benefits: the more a pilot defends a system the better his reward in that system. 4. Global Benefits: The more a pilot defends any system, the more he benefits in all friendly controlled systems (not at same leve as a local benefit).
That's it. If you want the reward, then put in the work. All this other stuff about industry boosting whatever that can be applied to any tom, richard and harry who has never done anything to earn them is stupid.
By stupid, I mean this: If CCP really wants to boost low sec, then these upgrade boosts should be applied to all of LOW SEC, not just FW low sec through the FW mechanic. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
495
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
Cearain wrote:What specifically do you mean individual pvp benefits? Repair costs ok. Ship pvp performance bonuses
Quote:But what do you mean marginal pvp boosts in that individual system locally and globally? Marginal as in not OP like 50% T3 cruiser fleet bonuses.
Quote:What do you mean the benefits decay if you are not active? If you don't participate for a while then your benefits decay back down to zero.
Quote:Is faction war no longer to be something for casual players? No? Have you stopped beating your wife?
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
495
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
delete |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
498
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:10:00 -
[32] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Even more reason to pile on the winning side.
And to the extent we are concerned with "immersion" and "making sense" how does that make sense? Your ship's scan resolution is somehow improved in system, locally, and globally because you hold a system? Are we giving the winning side's ships superpowers? Not only that but the ships superpowers decay over time?
Locals are helping you out a bit. If you don't help them out over time, they stop helping you out.
BTW, any amount of "rewards" give people "even more reason to pile on the winning side."
So I assume you do not want rewards of any kind. Am I correct? |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
521
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 16:44:00 -
[33] - Quote
Moonair wrote: A front line would be a perfect way of making this happen...
Fighting in Eve requires both sides to decide to engage (or requires at least one side to derp around unscouted to get ganked)
Front lines won't solve anything other than allow the dominant side to dominate the frontlines. There will be more blueballing of fleets when one side is larger/more capable than the other. This will lead to fewer fights overall - or more time wasted in stations while the FC comes up with the "perfect fleet" to counter the other sides' "perfect fleet". Boredom will occur.
One example is from 4 years ago when CCP decide to make an "event" out of Martoh for a weekend. PERVS and Caldari dominated the system. A fight was had, and then the rest of the weekend nothing happened because one side was stronger than the other. Nobody is going to consistently choose to engage in fights if he knows he will lose.
The current map allows the weaker side to use "guerilla tactics" and actually allows for a variety of engagements from solo to big fleets. For example, if your side is completely overpowered, then all you have to do is move a few systems away from the other side's home system. The current map also encourages each side to spread out to be more effective.
The "problem" CCP should be solving is how to stop farmers from exploiting the current plexing/LP system without making it too difficult to fight in plexes. The simplest solution was to force somebody running a plex to shoot all the rats. It probably should have been implemented one week into the last patch to see if it would work. But now we're on a different path with new plexes being created, etc.. We'll see what happens in this next iteration. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
530
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:31:00 -
[34] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: doesnt affect the amount of LP needed to upgrade the systems, only the number plexes needed to push them to vulnerable. Keep in mind that FW pilots are currently plexing systems as much as 200, 300, or 400% PAST vulnerable - so 50% is kind of weak compared to the amount of plexing activity currently.
We all know of course that this level of plexing activity only happens in non-occupied systems.... It's going to change quite a bit with the upcoming patch - so using afk alt plexing as an indicator of how "easy" or "hard" it will be to flip systems with this new feature is misleading at best.
Otherwise, bring it on. More texture to the map is better. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
565
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 06:26:00 -
[35] - Quote
The next big farming issue will be FW missions because the LP multiplier due to tiers that skews everything out of whack. 30k LP/mission is generous, 80k+ LP/mission is overwhelming.
Yes, missions don't affect occupancy warfare, which is a good thing, but they are "infinite" and can be run nonstop. Farming alts will return to mssion running and even with the LP bonus at just Tier 2 (which every faction can attain), they will be omnipresent in all factions. Concentration of wealth through FW activities will continue.
The tier LP multipliers ought to be dampened down much more than they already were. They skew everyting about FW into a farming metagame. Part of the solution may be to remove the LP payout multiplier to FW missions.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
602
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 22:35:00 -
[36] - Quote
Tennnagis wrote:Being in both sides of FW at different times, resupply is much harder for Amarr without trade hubs like dodixie available. Anything that could help imbalance to trade hubs would be nice. Jita -- RED FROG ---> High Sec System Near Warzone --- BLACK FROG ---> Your low sec base. There, market hub problem solved. |
|
|
|