Wednesday, September 4, 2013

FW: Adding a New Conflict Driver

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.



  1. It would make it easier for the larger militia to keep higher tiers, and remain in control. But is that a good thing?


    1. It won't be any easier then it is now. In fact, the other militia's ability to 'ninja' the easy systems before a bigger militia can react might make it somewhat harder to keep the very highest Tiers.

    2. It will be easy to flip things in between Tier 1-2...but get harder as you hit 3, and then very hard to maintain as you hit 4 and 5.

    3. Yes your proposal will make it easier for the larger militia than it is now.

      It is easier for the larger militia to sit in a few systems then it is for them to spread out to other systems. Your proposal makes it so they don't really need to spread out they can just sit in the more important systems.

      The question is whether this is a good idea.


  2. Its a bad idea. The tier system is not the only problem in FW. The 'stronghold' concept actually happened a couple of times when Sahtogas was the only system standing. But it means that as a defender you have to withstand a protracted siege(which is difficult with the disparity in timezones across FW) and that means defensive plexing almost continually. In Sahtogas my game time of 1-2 hours would comprise of 90% plexing. After a while you just get bored and stop logging in. Iron Oxide probably found the same grind in Arzad when we took it.

    I think a better concept is the idea of a front line - a series of systems that must be taken to focus fighting in a group of systems.

  3. Strongholds would increase the density of pilots from both sides. This would result in systems becoming empty of FW pilots. Players screamed from the mountaintops for FW to be the mechanism that saved small gang PVP, by increasing the density of pilots in a few systems, and emptying most, you've just recreated null in losec.

  4. Change is good. I don't think strongholds would increase the density of pilots at all. They are already concentrated due to the threat of station lockouts.

    What it would do is hamper the efforts of farmers looking for a quick buck. Also, there may be some interesting game play in which one side flips an undefended system and then upgrades it to 10 - making it very difficult and time consuming to take back.

  5. "Also, there may be some interesting game play in which one side flips an undefended system and then XXXXXXXXXXX- making it very difficult and time consuming to take back."

    We have seen this already , flipped in one night..week long plexin for gettin back.