These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Faction War: A New Conflict Driver
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#1 - 2013-09-04 22:49:39 UTC
Originally Posted Here

An interesting thing in FW is that one system is worth exactly the same as another system, in terms of warzone control. Therefore, ‘smart’ militias who have high warzone control tiers on the mind will go after the easier systems to flip first. After all, why take a highly defended system if you can take a system in the middle of nowhere and get the same advantage in points?

What if we changed this, and introduced the concept of ‘strongholds’ in the warzone – systems that are easier to defend, but also worth more to take.

Basically, instead of every system being upgradeable to lvl 5, we would vary the maximum upgrade allowable between 0 and 10. Each warzone would still have the exact same number of points overall, and would need the same number of points to get to each warzone control Tier. However, a system with no station might only be worth up to 2 points, whereas a system with a militia station in it might be worth upwards of 8 points.

On top of this, we would vary the VP of a system based on upgrade level in addition to Dust 514. A highly upgraded system would essentially have more hit points. (Or in our case, victory points.) Non upgraded systems would have significantly less, and would be significantly more vulnerable to a quick flip from the opposing militia.



This means that the most valuable systems in terms of warzone control, would also be the most defensible locations for various militias, and the hardest to take. It also means, the consequences for losing them would be significantly greater.



I could see a couple of benefits from making things non-uniform in this way:

First, it would add a factor of quality to FW strategy, as opposed to just quantity. Even underdog militias could create highly defended strongholds, preventing the opposition from getting Tier 5 unless one or more of these locations were taken. (After a long, drawn out, bloody battle of course.)

Taking certain, key systems, would be a lot more significant.

Secondly, while it wouldn’t reduce farming in general, it would reduce the impact of farmers on warzone control tiers. Farmers can knock themselves out farming the easier, less defended systems, and flip flopping them, but in the end, if they want the higher warzone control tiers, they’re going to have to fight for the more valuable (and more defended) systems.

Thirdly, since the VP is based on system upgrades, it means that players have to be involved in contributing toward defending their system with LP donations as opposed to simply letting them drop until the next ‘warzone control tier push.’ Defense of a system would be somewhat less passive. If you drop the ball, the system could be significantly more open to attack, with the hostile militia not having to take as many plexes in order to flip it.

Fourthly, the system would ‘funnel’ people into key, strategic areas, as opposed to encouraging people to spread out and plex large swathes of space.



Anyway, just a random idea. I’m not sure how easy it is for CCP to change things like that behind the scenes –it could be considered a massive overhaul, or simply a tweaking of a few numbers.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#2 - 2013-09-05 03:06:43 UTC
pros:
  • stealth nerf to afk plexer alts orbiting buttons in deserted butthole systems (I'm looking at you, Vimieni) to farm LPs
  • more realistic in terms of real world scenarios and wargaming

    • cons:
  • will reinforce stagnant gameplay

    • discussion:
    Already some ssystems are more valuable, strategically and monetarily and culturally than others.
    Strategic systems already exist. Example, Aset where the incumbent gets access to 7 systems to farm for LPs and don't care if they flip-flop. But when Aset flips, it can be a Big Deal because station lock-outs prevent enemies from plexing the 7 systems. Therefore, Aset might be flat in the LP and VP terrain, but in terms of contestation of the warzone, its flipping changes the momentum significantly. other strategic systems are Eszur-Frerstorn, Siseide, Dal, Amamake, etc.

    Culturally important systems exist where people have invested egoes, e-peen, history and braggadocio into holding their home base. For example, you guys go into a hissyfit meltdown whenever Huola is threatened, and everyone pushes contestation back down just to stop the bleating as much as beat back the Amarr. Same with Amarr and Saht - until recently. Dal seems to be a favourite of Rudexx, and you've got the guys in Siseide who defend it doggedly despite it being only average in terms of strategic importance. Conversely, no one gives a rats about down Todi way.

    Economically important systems also exist. krusual level 4's in Frerstorn are quite good for ISK/LP if you want a break from buttons or want to mint RF gear. Likewise, FW mission agent hubs do influence contestation especially as higher tiers appear, because of the idiotic LP flood you get from owning them.

    There is already plenty of difference between the real value of some systems and others for the above 3 reasons. Changing the VP and LP rewards for systems will affect the total warzone dominance mechanic, but will just result in alliances upping stumps and turning these systems into their home turf, which after a while, will result in similar cultural results.

    it will also align all cultural, strategic, and therefore by definition, all economic importance into the few systems which actually matter for VPs and warzone control. It might result in a few more fights but won't improve much.

    For example, if it matters a lot to hold, eg, Amamake for VP reasons (many gates, 20+ stations) and strategic reasons (camping to Osoggur gate) then you'd be swamped by plexing alts (yeah, fun) and have to defplex constantly. Not much of a change from, eg, holding Huola right now, or in reality, a bunch of low-value peripheral systems.

    This only really fixes the current system where the low-value systems where no one has a cultural, economic or strategic reason to hold them flip back and forth very regularly. This is a function of offensive plexing alts making more LPs than the value of people's time and the LPs gained for defplexing them. Its simply better to let it flip and offensive plex it back.

    ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~