Remove WARZONES, make a TUG of WAR across the system instead

[Iori]

Here is the thing, right now the conflict system is a bit absurd, just go to a random place in space and kill thousands of ships until the side with most kills wins across a timespan of several days.

War should be more engaging, dynamic, less grindy, with a feeling of accomplishment, progression, and a community effort.


My proposed changes:

The war for each planet will be fought in two stages:

Space stage:
Several military outposts, squadrons, relays, and battleships will spawn around the planet. Those will all be fixed locations.
When an objective is taken, it will be replaced by a similar asset belonging to your faction.
Some objectives are easier and can be done solo, and some are too hard and require wings.

When all orbital objectives are accomplished, any stations in orbit will be taken by that faction and it will open the planet up for the ground invasion.

Ground stage:

SRV and skimmer patrols, bases and outposts are spawned in fixed locations belonging to the controlling faction, and some to the attacking faction.
Conquering those bases will switch them to your faction.
SRV and skimmer patrols can be taken out by a single commander in a ship or an SRV.
Outposts can be taken out by a group of SRVs
Bases can only be taken out by a combination of SRVs and Ships (SRV to take out powerful AA turrets, and ships with heavy ordinance to destroy an armored command bunker)
Once all outposts and bases have been taken, the planet is conquered.


When a planet is conquered, the front line moves to the next planet in the system.
The invading faction will start controlling half of the orbital objectives in the first planet of the system
Non landable planets will only have space stage.
This is how naval rank should be increased, instead of random missions.
Joining and independent faction should have a bigger cash reward to make up for the lack of naval progression incentive.
There should be an easy to access list of conflicts in Galnet, as well as a dynamic E.T.A and location finder (similar to current community goals)
Conflicts should be announced beforehand to give players time to prepare and organize


When all the planets are conquered, the war ends and the system is taken by the winning faction.

 

[grae3107]

Really like this idea. +1

 

[Certacito]

+1 from me, that's a cracking idea, well presented.

 

[Muetdhiver]

That would be brilliant stuff. Reminds me of planetside which was really good for this.

IMO, your proposal is close to what FD should aim for to replace the placeholder CZ we have now.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Fighting over a station should happen outside the station too.
During which time the station is offline, and cannot be docked at. Or destroyed.

Arriving at a CZ should also give you a counter for each side. every time a ship is lost, that sides number drops, larger ships costing more. Also reinforcements can randomly arrive and boost that number.
At 0 that side loses. That way its not just an endless battle with random ships spawning...

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Fighting over a station should happen outside the station too.
During which time the station is offline, and cannot be docked at. Or destroyed.

Arriving at a CZ should also give you a counter for each side. every time a ship is lost, that sides number drops, larger ships costing more. Also reinforcements can randomly arrive and boost that number.
At 0 that side loses. That way its not just an endless battle with random ships spawning...

I think docking should be allowed, just have external station weapons offline as they don't want to hit their own ships.
It will just be dangerous, like running the gauntlet to get food and combat supplies into the station. You could have a trade CG for it.

 

[Ydiss]

I've been suggesting this since beta and it's even more awesome potential with horizons now being out.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I think docking should be allowed, just have external station weapons offline as they don't want to hit their own ships.
It will just be dangerous, like running the gauntlet to get food and combat supplies into the station. You could have a trade CG for it.

I just thought it could be exploited to be inside the station to recover, and cause all sorts of AI issues. Plus it would be too easy to repair and get back in the fight.

Unless anyone taking part in the CZ wasn't allowed to dock. But anyone else can.
But then you'd need more persistent CZ rules, where low waking out doesn't reset the faction you chose.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I just thought it could be exploited to be inside the station to recover, and cause all sorts of AI issues. Plus it would be too easy to repair and get back in the fight.

Unless anyone taking part in the CZ wasn't allowed to dock. But anyone else can.
But then you'd need more persistent CZ rules, where low waking out doesn't reset the faction you chose.

Make it that station services are disabled apart from commodities should work. And I agree about the low waking, once your decision is made thats it. You should lose all rep with the side you choose to go against, but maybe this is getting too complicated.

I also think that when there are wars going on in systems, the place descends into an anarchy system, so you can't get bounties for destroying your rival faction ships, also makes the whole place a bit of a combat zone as well.

 

[amigacooke]

Another +1 from me.

Hiding the 'war' in combat zones disconnects the feeling of a struggle for the system.

 

[Ranualf]

Nice idea, and to be honest i agree with you- up to a point. Yes the CZ are a bit random, but isn't that the point? The local factions decide that they have had "enough of the opponents , and are going to do something about it"...
Their opponent hears about it- via internal spy or some high tech device like a hacked web cam...So they meet up in space and decide to go at it... just like a CZ...

But you are right, fighting in space is just one component of a game that could be soo much more enriched by implementing something along the like of your ideas, but then you would have people complaining that "there is too much to do now to win a faction war"... yes ....wars were won by the flip of coin, history has taught us this... we never had to dig into the dig and lay siege to castles... hmm


Imaging thus:

The enemy have dug in CMDR.
We need YOU to go in there and clear them out, Intel state there are several options available, depending upon the size of the attacking force.
Go in there and evict them off OUR LAND, MAKE US PROUD!

If we could have larger wings, even if it was just on the ground then the game play change would be HUGE!
Imaging 10 srv's rolling over the hill with a few escort ships, the larger the attacking force, the larger the scenario. The scenario will change in scale because the ED client knows what ships are "in system" or on planet(in that scenario instance), thus making bigger ships = more defenses.
This would change gameplay and as to how players will no longer just jump into the conda of vette when they need to swat things down, because of the AI scaling difficulty.

Objective 1
An objective is heavily defended(of course it is, this in not hello kitty, this is ELITE DANGEROUS)
Intel report that there are several defensive systems- Skimmers in packs with some large heavily armed ones, AA turrets(BIG NASTY ONES) and ground cannons. Recon has advised that small ships would be more suited for the mission(hello hi grav) and easier to fly on the moons because a big ship =a big target, and the enemy have lots of guns.... your choice CMDR....

Optional objective
Intel also stated that there are several power lightly guarded power generators(Skimmers, and a few Goliaths), but access is very limited (aka no ships, just the srv's) taking out these will help eliminate several turrets turrets and skimmer control buildings(players could be offered a choice of either skimmer / turret shut down or a combination- it is all dependent upon what you are attacking with).
Once these are down, players can then use their ships or srv's help with the skimmers and remaining perimeter guns.

Objective 2
The srv army move in, shoot up the remaining skimmers (say 30 or so to clear the "zone" and / or a few Goliaths) they then they move onto the AA gun zone, which is cross fired by the ground guns(it's not easy remember, and it is ALSO basic tactical sense). Thus you will need a few flying guns to help out. Again more game play, and players have a choice to stick with the srv's(and be shot in them) or fly in and swat the guns and get shot at by the AA....

Objective 3
The last defense has several skimmers, AA guns and ground cannons, so it is going to be a push, a gamble... it is going to be DANGEROUS....
Intel states the enemy have "fortified systems", so they are tougher... the enemy spent their last remaining creds on these things...
But if you clear it, your faction will hold onto to it...until the enemy gets brave enough to try and take it back...
So when they do attack you need to DEFEND IT... cue another ground/air mix mechanic for the game (FD should pay us in paint skins)


And this is just one scenario...

Lets hope FD read this(and give us paint skins).

 

[Duane Dibbley]

Worse than any of this in terms of negligent/poorly thought through game design, is that CQC was a perfect instrument to implement this kind of connected gameplay..it would also have deflected a lot of PP criticism too! Hence incorporating CQC / PP / Ascension ranking and possibly a separate military ranking process with unlocked military specs, medals (just call me Muttley!) would have added so much to ED universe.

My absolute first thought when looking at CQC on release was..what are FD thinking making it a tacked on part of the game?..look at the resources that went into CQC, it seems insane that nobody on project development thought of game integration..or even worse, thought of the concept..then rejected it!

FD? You could do worse than listen to this guy who seemed to know what he was on about when he said 'the whole is greater than the sum of the it's parts'..his name was Aristotle or something!

 

[BEKTOP 3APEMOB]

This (0P) sounds like fun - we need it.

 

[Iori]

The only technical limitation I see to my proposed system, is how the instancing works, where there could be players in two different instances generating different results.

The solution would be that when attacking an objective, the system only generates one instance to get everyone in.

If the rare event that the instance gets full, it could generate a secondary instance, but the result of that one won't be saved and wont count towards the goal (but it will count towards earning rank and money). Neither will the solo and private group players. So while they CAN participate, they actions wont be in conflict with the main group.

 

[Backelaer]

This thread should be stickied. Just to make sure Fdev see it. I mean, some of the things OP is suggesting might be hard to realise, but the general gist of it soudns brilliant and it would hugely increase the feeling of engagement and actually fighting for something.
+1 to you Iori!

 

[Jezzah]

Aye the current Conflict Zone implementation is silly within the context of open space. Small skirmishes or large battles procedurally generated in proximity to points of interest such as stations, outposts, asteroid belts, <any other FD created point of interest> would make a lot more sense. Especially feel they should disappear once one side is wiped out and the player would go back into SC to search for other battles.

 

[knowles2]

Here is the thing, right now the conflict system is a bit absurd, just go to a random place in space and kill thousands of ships until the side with most kills wins across a timespan of several days.

War should be more engaging, dynamic, less grindy, with a feeling of accomplishment, progression, and a community effort.


My proposed changes:

The war for each planet will be fought in two stages:

Space stage:
Several military outposts, squadrons, relays, and battleships will spawn around the planet. Those will all be fixed locations.
When an objective is taken, it will be replaced by a similar asset belonging to your faction.
Some objectives are easier and can be done solo, and some are too hard and require wings.

When all orbital objectives are accomplished, any stations in orbit will be taken by that faction and it will open the planet up for the ground invasion.

Ground stage:

SRV and skimmer patrols, bases and outposts are spawned in fixed locations belonging to the controlling faction, and some to the attacking faction.
Conquering those bases will switch them to your faction.
SRV and skimmer patrols can be taken out by a single commander in a ship or an SRV.
Outposts can be taken out by a group of SRVs
Bases can only be taken out by a combination of SRVs and Ships (SRV to take out powerful AA turrets, and ships with heavy ordinance to destroy an armored command bunker)
Once all outposts and bases have been taken, the planet is conquered.


When a planet is conquered, the front line moves to the next planet in the system.
The invading faction will start controlling half of the orbital objectives in the first planet of the system
Non landable planets will only have space stage.
This is how naval rank should be increased, instead of random missions.
Joining and independent faction should have a bigger cash reward to make up for the lack of naval progression incentive.
There should be an easy to access list of conflicts in Galnet, as well as a dynamic E.T.A and location finder (similar to current community goals)
Conflicts should be announced beforehand to give players time to prepare and organize


When all the planets are conquered, the war ends and the system is taken by the winning faction.

+1 from me as well. Hope the war mechanic get a big overhaul in the future.

Only thing I disagree is the replacement of assets with your own. This should depends on the background simulations and on what happening in the rest of the system. A civil war shouldn't lead to replacement assets quickly. Whilsts outside attacks from other systems should depend on how strong the attacking systems is.

I suspect we will have to wait until they transfer the stations over to the more dynamic systems they use to place bases on the ground.

 

[Iori]

+1 from me as well. Hope the war mechanic get a big overhaul in the future.

Only thing I disagree is the replacement of assets with your own. This should depends on the background simulations and on what happening in the rest of the system. A civil war shouldn't lead to replacement assets quickly. Whilsts outside attacks from other systems should depend on how strong the attacking systems is.

I suspect we will have to wait until they transfer the stations over to the more dynamic systems they use to place bases on the ground.

I thought about asset replacement to give the defenders somewhere to counter attack.

 

[Drelthar]

Great ideas.

Shame it would require FD to change the entire way the game works.

You can't do things like this, because the whole thing runs off a database which get's updated at certain times, and this proposed system requires almost constant updates, or updates upon completion of some specific thing. There's also the instancing issues which would interfere with this.

It would be great if the game worked like this, but it doesn't and never will. It's an unfortunately hideous design flaw.

 

[Apos]

This would require system updates to become constant first instead of daily.

And then there's the whole open/private/solo thing to settle...

Nevertheless, there's still some things that could be improved even within these limits.