Without NPC militias and forced enlistment, players will form their own militias, simplifying the situation.
No war decs needed for FW; suspect timers are enough
then you get security status losses for shooting their structures and criminal timers for shooting pods, also the podding will multiply the sec loss by 10
this would also prevent militias from entering highsec because the criminal timers and ruin any travelling in highsec since they are suspects
also militias wouldnât be able to effectively play the insurgency on highsec since they would be shot by randoms that arenât even enlisted
plus, non enlisted randoms would be able to freely gatecamp and shoot militias without any security loss or gate guns interference
overall, bad idea
Funny, I said âsuspect timers are enough,â knowing someone would immediately assume theyâre permanent, even though they arenât.
Some suggestion for FW from my personal experiences with FW:
New frontline system:
REARGUARD:
No LP sites are generated for these systems. These systems cannot be plexed for system control and are essentially off the books for any type of FW activity. System is always at 0% Contested until it is opened up via Frontline mechanics.
COMMAND OPERATIONS:
Hacking sites will be generated for these systems. New hacking sites should be created for FW players who donât give a â â â â about the Encoder/Decoder mechanics (have better loot sites that have chance of yielding Factional/LP store loot).
The Shipcaster can only be built in Command Operation systems, is invulnerable, and is defended by Empire turrets that automatically attack opposing militia/pirate/pirate sec status pilots (make them weaker than standard gate guns). The Shipcaster construct will expire after 30 days, after which it will be necessary to construct another one. Each militia is limited to x2 Shipcaster constructs, and entry gates can be constructed by the miltias in High sec systems directly adjacent to the entry systems of the WZ. The Shipcaster can be brought into a vulnerable state if the Command Operation system becomes a Frontline system, after which it can be destroyed by opposing militia for a large LP payout (same as current BFs). The change to a generally invulnerable state would address the issue with the SC where it is too hard to defend, while facilitating the movement of FW pilots into the WZ from their respective Highsec systems.
FRONTLINE:
ONLY Frontline systems will generate plex sites that contribute to the contested state of a WZ Systems.
There should be changes to the sites to address the farming problem that seems pretty rife. One suggestion would be to keep the gate system of the sites (sliding into the site). However, once inside the plex the timer can only progress if there is a ship within 5km of the Beacon, rather than the current system which allows pilots to tick the site while out of scram/disrupter range of pilots sliding onto the beacon. If a pilot/fleet is driven out of a plex by the opposing faction, the timer will immediately reset to 0 (for example, if a CalMil pilot/fleet has a small site ticked to 9 minutes and 30 seconds, and they are driven from the site by a GalMil pilot/fleet, the timer will go back to 0 and immediately begin ticking for the GalMil pilot/fleet). This would a simple way to deter some farming behaviours by punishing farmers even if they tick the site close to completion.
Novice sites should be removed. Just combine the Novice and Smalls into the same site entity.
The current 5 sites (e.g. Small ADV-5) should be removed, replaced with a new system of multi-pilot LP site (see below).
CCP could experiment with a new type of site that would limit the amount of players per faction that could enter. For instance, there could be a new Disputed Site that only allows 5 players of each faction to enter. It could function like the ESS sites where once inside, there is a Warp Disruption bubble that prevents warping out to a range of 80km (does not turn off MWDs). If a pilot of one faction loses their ship inside the site, a pilot of the same faction waiting outside the site will be able to slide in to replace him (pods will not count as a combat entity, and thus do not contribute to the pilot faction limit). This could create scenarios where blobbing is less of a concern, but also where fights are encouraged both inside and outside the site. For example, the gate warp radius could be reduced to 50km; fleets would be encouraged to fight outside the site to act as a reserve for their fleet members fighting inside, while trying to deny the enemy an opportunity for them to reinforce their fleet inside the site. The bubble is immediately disabled once the site is captured. Perhaps a Small Disputed Site would allow 5 pilot per faction limit (frig/destroyer hull limit like the regular small sites), while a Large Disputed Site would allow 10 (BCs and BS allowed). Due to the added risk of being essentially âlocked inâ to the fight, these site should give a higher LP payout. Pilots not pledged to a miltia are locked out of Disputed sites (cannot use the slide gate, but are able to warp to the outside gate and camp it).
I would make some adjustments to the Supply Cache and RZ Sites. There should be a visual indicator for these sites to friendly militia members when they are under attack by the enemy militia. Supply caches should have a defend timer (make it short, 10 mins max). SC rats should be made weaker in terms of HP/DPS but have the ability to warp disrupt (not scram, and only one of the SC rats should disrupt). When SCs are destroyed there will be a chance that it drops a significant amount of low-level faction loot (no modules, just ammo or the datacores). When the BS at the RZ site is under attack, a beacon should spawn for the militia members to which that BS is factionally aligned that they are able to find in their overview and warp to (this beacon does not spawn in the overview of enemy faction members or neutral pilots). The BS should scram/warp disrupt/web at least 1 enemy pilot, thus introducing a âlocked-inâ mechanic for the attacking faction. Again, adding a larger element of risk to the attackers should create new pay off opportunities; there should be a high chance of the BS dropping a decent number of faction dogtags/rarer dogtags, and a small chance of it dropping faction loot.
The total amount of LP sites in systems should be capped to a randomised set of site types (e.g. only 6 sites per Frontline system, x2 smalls, x1 Disputed Medium, x1 SC, x1 Large as a randomised set). Once a plex has been completed, spawn time of a replacement plex should be almost instant (1 min, and is also randomised).
In Conclusion:
The intended effect of these suggestions are to not only concentrate pilot activity to a smaller area of the WZ (reduce the amount of âlookingâ for fights by FW members), but to facilitate that activity by greatly reducing Shipcaster transience (make it easier for FW pilots to enter and resupply themselesv in the WZ). The other changes to the sites would hopefully deter farming behaviour, and by increasing the âlocked inâ factor of the sites by reducing pilotsâ opportunity to flee without a fight, attract more combat or objective oriented players to the WZ. In short, these changes would hopefully create a positive feedbak loop whereas:
- HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF ACTIVITY IN A SMALLER AREA, DISTRIBUTED OVER A SMALLER NUMBER BUT MORE FREQUENTLY SPAWNING SITES CREATES MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMBAT/OBJECTIVE ORIENTED PLAYERS.
- EASE OF MOVEMENT INTO THE WZ INCREASES INTENSITY OF ACTIVITY.
- THROUGH MECHANICS PLAYERS CAN BE âLOCKED-INâ TO THE SITES, CREATING MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMBAT COMMITAL AND THUS ATTRACTING CONTENT-SEEKING PILOTS THE FW.
- DISPUTED SITES CREATE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES FOR âFAIRERâ FIGHTS, CREATING INSTANCES WHERE SMALL FLEETS CAN THRIVE AND INCENTIVIZING SMALL-GANG AND EVEN SOLO PILOTS TO FLOCK TO THE WZ.
FW pilots are some of the most passionate EVE players, and I would love to see some rejuvenation of FaWar Space. I would love to hear any criticism of the suggestions Iâve outlayed.
1 Like
I am not noticing the militias doing much, really anything, about pirate incursions, the corruptions of system. They seem to just focus fighting the other FW ânationâ.
Letting systems fall to corruptionâŚis this just a numbers thing? Or do they just not care. Or just less rewards to motivate them to stop the pirates?
There is not really any incentive to fight the pirates outside of select systems that people may care about (defending HS moons mostly). Often times, the corruption benefits are just better than the suppression ones and the LP is the same, so itâs better to just fight for system control from the opposing Empire and just ignore Pirates. Having a separate LP store (more Mordu/Upwell focused) might help things, and buffing suppression bonuses might help.
Subject: Double Standards? Unfair AFK Mechanics, Superficial Pirate Fixes & Rampant Bots Threaten FW Future!
To CCP Games & the EVE Community,
I am writing today out of deep concern for the health and fairness of Faction Warfare (FW), specifically regarding glaring imbalances and unaddressed systemic issues that are actively damaging the experience and driving players away.
1. Unfair Disparity in AFK Prevention: Why Do Pirates Get a Free Pass?
CCP, why does the Empire Militia (Amarr/Minmatar/Caldari/Gallente) have a functional system to deter AFK players and credit farmers â the âBattlefield Stagnationâ mechanic â while the Pirate Militias (Guristas/Blood Raider/Angel/Sansha) have NO SUCH MECHANISM? This is a fundamental imbalance. It actively encourages parasitic behavior within Pirate FW, where individuals can simply park ships, contribute nothing meaningful to the battlefield effort, and still reap rewards. How is this fair to Empire players subject to stricter rules, and how does this promote healthy, active gameplay in Pirate zones? This double standard needs immediate explanation and rectification.
2. Superficial Pirate Militia âFixâ Ignores the Root Cause:
The June 24th, 2025 update notes mention addressing âPirate Militia ganking.â While preventing excessive friendly fire within militias is a surface-level concern, it completely ignores the CORE PROBLEM: Why does this ganking happen in the first place? There is a cause and effect.
Many players target fellow Pirate Militia members precisely because they perceive a significant portion of them as âparasitesâ â players who contribute ZERO meaningful activity (scouting, capturing complexes, PvP) to the war effort, yet still benefit from system captures and LP payouts. They are seen as leeching off the efforts of active participants. The proposed âfixâ does nothing to address this underlying resentment and frustration. It merely treats a symptom while ignoring the disease. CCP, have you actually assessed whether the players being âgankedâ were contributing anything at all? Without a mechanism like the Empireâs AFK deterrent, Pirate FW is structurally incentivized to attract non-contributors. Where is the system to ensure Pirate Militia rewards match actual contribution?
3. Rampant Automation & Syncer Scripts: An Open Secret Destroying Fair Play:
The situation is further exacerbated by the blatant presence of multi-boxing synchronization scripts and automation within FW space, particularly in the contested warzone systems. This isnât speculative; itâs observable daily. We see fleets of 10, 20, or more accounts moving with impossible, inhuman precision â aligning, warping, docking, and performing actions in perfect, robotic unison. This is NOT skilled multi-boxing; this is automation, pure and simple, violating the EULA and the spirit of fair competition.
These automated fleets:
- Farm LP/ISK with minimal effort and zero risk.
- Skew system capture mechanics without genuine player engagement.
- Create an overwhelmingly negative experience for legitimate players trying to engage in PvP or objective-based play.
- Are an obvious sign of cheating that goes persistently unchecked.
The Critical Question: Player Retention & Trust:
CCP, the combination of these issues â the unfair lack of Pirate AFK mechanics, superficial solutions ignoring core problems like non-contribution, and the rampant, unchecked automation â creates a toxic and demoralizing environment. How many legitimate players do you honestly believe will tolerate this long-term?
We invest time, effort, and passion into EVE and Faction Warfare. We expect a fair, competitive, and human environment policed effectively against cheating. The current state of FW, particularly Pirate Militias, fails spectacularly on these fronts. The June 24th Pirate change feels like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while ignoring the gaping holes below the waterline.
We demand:
- Immediate parity: Implement a robust AFK/non-contribution deterrent mechanism for ALL militias, Pirate and Empire, ensuring rewards are tied to active participation.
- Address the root cause: Seriously investigate the perception and reality of non-contribution within Pirate Militias and design systems that actively reward meaningful participation and discourage parasitic play.
- Aggressive action against automation: Devote significant resources to detecting, investigating, and permanently banning players using syncer scripts and automation tools in FW space. This is not a minor nuisance; itâs game-breaking cheating.
- Transparency: Communicate clearly what steps are being taken to address these critical issues.
The future health of Faction Warfare, a cornerstone of EVEâs new player experience and dynamic conflict, depends on CCP taking these concerns seriously and acting decisively. The current path is unsustainable and drives away the very players who make EVE unique.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Capsuleer
17 Likes
Hey CCP, quick thought experiment:
Imagine if Dave from Accounting
-
Rolled into the office at 4:59 PM daily,
-
High-fived the devs as they shipped the patch,
-
Then collected identical paychecks
âŚwhile yâall crunched for months fixing his spreadsheet errors.
Thatâs not a âworkplaceâ â
Thatâs our Angel sites with looters.
P.S. Dave probably flies a cloaked Atron. XP
1 Like
I want the FW (Faction Warfare) zones to be a loyal militia that rewards pilots based on actual contributionânot a breeding ground for lazy parasites and backstabbing traitors! CCP, your latest changes are just enabling these leeches! Every time I grind hard for LP (Loyalty Points), only to have some freeloading scum swoop in and steal the rewards, it makes my blood boilâthis isnât my militia, itâs a damn fifth column planted by the Empire!!!
Iâve tried purging these rats, but itâs pointless. They just sit in their dirt-cheap, million-ISK frigates, raking in tens or even hundreds of millions, while Iâm out here burning ammo, repairing armor, and dodging Navy gatecamps! And the sick joke? Shooting them actually tanks my standing?! HOW IS THIS FAIR?!
I demand CCP re-evaluate FW mechanicsâimplement a strict contribution-based system in Pirate Insurgencies to ensure rewards go to real combat pilots, not these AFK leeches! This isnât an exaggeration: if this keeps up, FW will become nothing but an ISK-farming dumpster fire! CCP, FIX THIS NOW!"
1 Like
This is whatâs happening this morning:
There are tens of atrons and slashers, doing nothing on the site but stealing LPs. Many of them are even fresh, one-day-old characters.
We urgently request an update - either allowing us to easily drive them out without standing loss; or reconsidering the LP distribution mechanics, just like a seagulling timer in Empire Militas.
CCPlz, fix this now.
2 Likes
Itâs ridiculous that pilots are paid for being present AT ALL. Why the heck design the site in such a way?
Solution is really simple: Place some high HP thingy in there that either has to be destroyed or to be repaired, and only the fleet that did the most damage or repaired the most HP gets a payout. Distributed evenly among the fleet members, peaking at X chars, so bringing more than X mightl increase your chances to win, but reduce everyones payout.
Greetings
Iâm glad to see the new update about you guys are willing to work on awoxing issues within FW, which is really something that upset both FW veterans and new players by replacing the only role-playing war with nullsec politics and real-life hatred 
So I might be able to give you a different perspective you may miss out, therefore you may change it in a better way.
First of all, Before Uprising, one part of the past design of factional warfare is that FW playersâ main income is related to their standings. for example, if you finally reached the standings of level 4 mission(main income source) your standings will remain relatively stable(the higher your standing the harder you raise it and level 4 mission are designed mainly for profit instead of standing increase, and players needs some form each round of missions running for next round of missions rejection), then if you shoot a friendly player your standing will probably drop to Level 3(the higher your standing the more it decreases), which means it at least takes some time to make up for it. But right now we lost this correlation.
What legitimate this behavior right now also includes nullsec&FW standings chaos. you could have âenemiesâ within your corporation/alliance and âfriendsâ in your opponent nullsec alliance and vice versa in FW war zone, which you wouldnât see happening in the past. imagine if youâre new to faction warfare as a nullsec player, no wonder you would think killing friendly militia members is legitimate, and will never filter off âmilitiaâ from your PvP overview, right? This also explains why nullsec players and non-English-speaking groups tend to do this more, because they are not only unpunished and unabused(donât read militia channel and emails), but also encouraged by their leaders, groups which can be ultimately attributed to the current mechanism.
Itâs getting worse if we really put ourselves in the head of a new player in detail.
So if we are really going to fix this playerâs behavior at least to a level of before Uprising(even though I think we should do more since I already felt tired about seeing awoxing issues before Uprising expansion), I think you already know where we can start from, for example:
- Respect both nullsec war and factional war. Replace player standings with factional warfare standing in nullsec and replace factional warfare standing with player standing in war zone. (code plan Bďźjust donât show irrelevant standing and no standing&security abduction in irrelevant area or only show them in relevant area. code plan C: Alliances and corporations can not open enlist permissions for opposing factions simultaneously anymore or can only join one faction after providing npc standings redeem solution.)
- Bring back the correlation of NPC standings and income to encourage players on the right way. However, I donât think itâs necessary for the standing increase to have/only have a strong correlation with PvE this time therefore to make it also an opportunity for addressing seagull issues which has been a significant trigger of chaotic friendly fire and player hatreds for almost 2 years.
- Fix logi/assistant awoxing exploitation like war declaration.
I might fail to know/mention something as well since I havenât played FW for a while after being upset by seeing the hatred. Just for your reference o7
+rep
need for fair.
1 Like
Please nerf angel rats and or buff upwell rats
Please find a way to stop null bloc alliances from farming back end systems of fw space. they are divertingi content from ppl who actually want to shoot stuff
More for angels cartel to do would be nice; solo and small gang, not more plexes to sit in?
Still waiting.
Unsubbed right now, Make me sub again 
Also do something about all the ISOboxers⌠make it legal or Hardware ban them.
2 Likes
In High Sec, Sea Gulling would be called Ganking.
1 Like
but nothing dies?
Iâm going to keep repeating this because itâs critical: to meaningfully reduce awoxing in Faction Warfare, CCP must require personal standing only for militia participation â corporation standings should not be considered.
Right now, awoxers are exploiting a major loophole: by joining with high-standing alts or hiding in corps with a positive average standing, they bypass the personal standing penalties entirely. This completely undermines the intent of faction loyalty and system integrity.
Raising the pirate standing threshold is a step in the right direction, but it wonât stop determined bad actors. Those who are serious about exploiting the system will simply grind or buy faction standings on throwaway or secondary accounts.
To close this loophole, CCP needs to decouple corp standings from militia eligibility. Whether through direct enlistment only or a simple change to the current check, only personal standing should determine whether a character remains eligible for faction warfare.
If CCP is serious about protecting the integrity of Faction Warfare and discouraging exploitation, this change is essential.
1 Like