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.