Guristas Militia Feedback
I’d like to raise a number of concerns that have been discussed repeatedly by Guristas militia members throughout the lifetime of the Insurgency system. These concerns are not coming from one individual, one corporation, or one alliance. They are issues that have been consistently raised across the militia by players who actively participate in this content every day.
I’d like FC to take a fresh look at the following mechanics.
1. Suppression and Corruption Are Not Mechanically Equal
One of the biggest balance concerns is the way Suppression and Corruption interact during an Insurgency.
If an Empire militia suppresses a system to Suppression Stage V, the Guristas are prevented from corrupting that system beyond Corruption Stage IV. Our progression is effectively capped.
However, the reverse is not true.
Even if the Guristas successfully corrupt a system to Corruption Stage V, the Empire militia can still suppress that same system all the way to Suppression Stage V, and that suppression continues to count towards the objective required to end the Insurgency.
The result is that Empire militias always retain a path towards completing their objective, whereas Guristas can have theirs shut down entirely.
Suppression itself could be made a more engaging objective for Empire militia pilots. Rather than serving primarily as a way to end an Insurgency, higher levels of Suppression could offer progressively stronger incentives for players actively contributing to it.
For example, the game developers could consider:
-
Increased Loyalty Point payouts for faction warfare pilots actively participating in suppression activities.
-
Stronger or additional Suppression effects at higher suppression levels, making the mechanic feel more impactful as it progresses.
-
An increased modifier to contesting and system capture, rewarding militias that successfully establish and maintain high Suppression levels.
Changes such as these would not only make Suppression more rewarding to pursue, but would also encourage sustained participation throughout an Insurgency while helping to create a more balanced relationship between Suppression and Corruption.
2. Militia Mechanics Should Override Suspect and Security Status Interactions
As members of the Guristas militia, many pilots naturally have a security status below -5.0. The pirate identity of the faction is one of the things that makes it unique, but the interaction between militia mechanics and Crimewatch creates unnecessary complications during fleet combat.
Currently, if a logistics pilot remotely repairs someone with an active suspect timer, criminal timer or outlaw security status, those flags can transfer to the logistics pilot. This is a long-standing Crimewatch mechanic that applies throughout New Eden.
Within Faction Warfare, however, this creates an unnecessary conflict between the militia system and Crimewatch. I’d like FC to consider allowing militia membership to take precedence when providing logistics support.
For example:
-
Remotely repairing a member of your own militia should not generate suspect or criminal consequences simply because they have outlaw status or an existing timer.
-
Remotely repairing a neutral pilot with an active suspect timer, criminal timer or outlaw security status should continue to work exactly as it does today.
-
Likewise, repairing an enemy militia pilot (a war target) should continue to incur the existing penalties.
This would not require changing Crimewatch across EVE. Instead, it would simply establish that shared militia membership overrides Crimewatch flag inheritance when supporting legitimate fleetmates, while preserving the existing risks associated with repairing neutrals or enemy militia members.
As an added benefit, this would also discourage cross-faction multiboxing by preventing players from freely providing logistics support to opposing militia characters without consequence.
3. Cross-Faction Multiboxing Is Undermining Insurgency Gameplay
This is not about multiboxing itself. Multiboxing has always been part of EVE.
The concern is that the current mechanics allow players to operate characters enlisted in opposing militias in ways that undermine the integrity of Insurgency content.
A common example is an Ice Heist or Mining Operation.
Players may enter a site alongside friendly militia members, only to discover that those same individuals are simultaneously controlling characters enlisted in the opposing militia. At a moment of their choosing, they bring in their opposing faction characters, drive everyone else out of the site and secure the LP rewards almost entirely for themselves.
This creates a situation where a relatively small number of players are able to manipulate objectives and LP distribution while genuine militia members have very little meaningful counterplay.
The result is predictable:
-
Players stop participating in these sites.
-
A small number of multiboxers dominate the rewards.
-
The content becomes less enjoyable and less accessible for everyone else.
I’m not suggesting that multiboxing should be removed from EVE. However, I do believe the mechanics surrounding Insurgency sites should be reviewed so that controlling characters in opposing militias cannot be used to manipulate objectives and LP rewards in ways that discourage legitimate participation.
4. Gate Gun Mechanics During Stage V Suppression Appear to Be Inconsistent
This issue has been raised before, but it remains a significant concern.
At Suppression Stage V, gate guns in affected low-security systems are intended to be disabled.
However, there are still interactions that appear to reactivate them.
Examples include:
-
A cloaked ship decloaking on or around a gate appearing to trigger gate gun activation.
-
A Heavy Interdictor activating, deactivating and then reactivating its warp disruption field causing the gate guns to begin firing again.
Whether these are bugs or unintended interactions with legacy mechanics, the end result is the same.
Gate guns become active in situations where players reasonably expect them to remain disabled. This has also created gameplay where players deliberately trigger these interactions during gate camps in order to bring NPC gate guns back into the fight and gain an unintended advantage.
If Stage V Suppression is intended to disable gate guns, then they should remain disabled consistently throughout that state.
5. The Removal of Stage V Guristas NPCs Has Changed the Character of Corrupted Space
Another concern is the removal of the Guristas roaming NPCs that previously appeared during Stage V Corruption.
I understand why these NPCs attracted criticism. They were dangerous, dealt significant damage and could have a major impact on engagements.
However, their complete removal has fundamentally changed the character of a fully corrupted Insurgency.
Elsewhere in EVE, players regularly encounter dangerous environmental NPCs as part of the gameplay experience (Sansha/Trig). Those hazards are accepted as part of the identity and risk associated with those areas.
Yet during a fully corrupted Guristas Insurgency, the faction that has supposedly established complete control no longer has an equivalent presence on gates.
This raises an obvious question: why is this mechanic treated differently for Guristas?
Stage V Corruption should feel like a meaningful escalation of the Insurgency. Instead, the removal of Guristas gate NPCs has made fully corrupted systems feel less distinctive while removing one of the few mechanics that reinforced Guristas control of the warzone.
6. Better Utilisation of the Forward Operating Base and Zarzakh Shipcaster
The Guristas Forward Operating Base (FOB) and the Zarzakh shipcaster are some of the most distinctive features introduced alongside pirate faction warfare. However, at present, they feel underutilised and could play a much larger role in the Insurgency experience.
One possible improvement would be to expand the functionality of the Zarzakh shipcaster.
Currently, the shipcaster allows pilots to travel from Zarzakh to the active Forward Operating Base, but the journey is one-way. Allowing pilots to use the shipcaster in both directions would make Zarzakh a far more useful staging location while improving the ability of pirate militias to mobilise throughout an Insurgency.
The Forward Operating Base itself could also become much more meaningful, although players can currently store assets there, doing so is generally discouraged because, once the Insurgency ends and the FOB relocates, any remaining assets are automatically moved into Asset Safety. As a result, most players avoid using the FOB as anything more than a temporary stopover.
If players routinely staged ships and equipment from the FOB, it would become a valuable strategic objective in its own right. Enemy militias attacking the FOB would be disrupting active logistics, while pirate militias would have meaningful reasons to organise fleets to defend it.
Closing Thoughts
None of these concerns, in isolation, completely define the Guristas experience. However, when considered together they reveal a pattern of mechanical asymmetry, unintended interactions and gameplay disadvantages that disproportionately affect the pirate militia.
I hope this feedback is received in the constructive spirit in which it is intended, and I’d welcome discussion from players on all sides of the conflict.
