How to most easily win a war

[Starman 1966]

Possible exploit for CZs: Take a Cutter with strong shields and stuff in a class 7 fighter hangar. Go to a CZ, choose the side you want to harm and deploy one fighter after another. CZ will be lost in no time. Rinse and repeat, while other guys of your group win CZs in a regular way. Do this in a PG and in the meantime let your PvP group obstruct the system in Open. It has never been easier.

Conclusion: War mechanics and CZs need an overhaul. The old version wasn't that bad.

Additionally: Why are Spec Ops ships still not tagged as mission targets while doing massacre missions? Shouldn't be too difficult to fix.

 

[Vandaahl]

Thx, awesome info. I'm looking forward to the 'easy' part

 

[Schmack]

It is odd that we can pick a side every time we drop out of SC. We can pick the opposing side of the one we just fought for. We don't gain anything by doing so, but it can be done and magically no one remembers you.

 

[Riverside]

I agree on the spec ops ships, they should count towards the massacre mission count.

As far as winning the war is concerned is what you describe quicker than killing cops? I don't do either btw but conflict zones don't seem to be all that hard atm and it's the winning the session & cashing in the bonds that wins the war more than the time it takes to complete the scenario.

 

[Stealthie]

Seems like there'd be more enjoyment to be had from fighting in a CZ properly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Possible exploit for CZs: Take a Cutter with strong shields and stuff in a class 7 fighter hangar. Go to a CZ, choose the side you want to harm and deploy one fighter after another. CZ will be lost in no time. Rinse and repeat, while other guys of your group win CZs in a regular way. Do this in a PG and in the meantime let your PvP group obstruct the system in Open. It has never been easier.

Conclusion: War mechanics and CZs need an overhaul. The old version wasn't that bad.

What you describe is the slow way round winning a war- its just as easy to oppose it- that is unless you have tested it and a CZ loss is more than a win (i.e. a win is 1, but a loss is -2).

An easy fix would be to make SLFs (player or otherwise) not count as losses (since they are disposable).

The old CZs are exploitable though. A PG heal beam chunky ship group can simply sit there and farm away while healing each other.

 

[Starman 1966]

The old CZs were mostly transaction based. Hand in every 100k combat bonds or so. Nothing to be gained from sitting around and healing each other except for CR farming. Heal beams are ridiculous in every way and need to be removed, but that's another story.

And it doesn't matter if a CZ loss is -2 and a win +1 or vice versa. You can simply push and pull at the same time using borked game mechanics instead of doing CZs properly as it should have been intended.

 

[Maolagin]

As far as winning the war is concerned is what you describe quicker than killing cops? I don't do either btw but conflict zones don't seem to be all that hard atm and it's the winning the session & cashing in the bonds that wins the war more than the time it takes to complete the scenario.

I had the same thought as OP and gave it a try a while back - declared for the "wrong" side and then flew around being unhelpful until "my" side lost. It took about the same amount of time as winning the CZ the usual way, and of course I didn't get combat bonds to turn in. So yes, that was unproductive.

Now I think OP's innovation is to get SLFs destroyed to cause the fight to end faster than it otherwise would. Which does matter, since then you can get more losses on the board per unit time. However, I'm skeptical that this is actually more efficient than fighting the CZ, especially if you have a Cutter to work with.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The easiest way to win wars is to win the CZs more often than the opposition. It doesn't matter how that difference between win/loss is achieved, the only thing that counts is player numbers actively working for a goal.

If intentionally losing CZs is to be fixed the best way would be to make a 10-15 minute time for CZs to reset after a win/loss (not sure if such a time is currently in place, I think it was when the new CZ system was introduced).

PS: PvP part of a group controlling Open is an additional waste of time. The opposition can easily avoid getting into the same instances as the PvP wings.

BGS conflicts are lost because of lack of knowledge and/or lack of manpower*.


*) personpower? CMDRpower? human resources?

 

[Starman 1966]

The opposition can easily avoid getting into the same instances as the PvP wings.

Mind to explain how one could manage this?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Mind to explain how one could manage this?

Mode selection, playing at different times, anchor wings (if that still works). Throwing in blocking might work too, but I have no experience with blocking.

 

[Starman 1966]

Blocking only decreases the possibility of being instanced with a blocked CMDR, tried it two times or so out of curiosity, one can simply forget about it.

My player group is engaging in a policy of "open only", so there is no hiding in other game modes. Another reason why not only PP but also BGS work should be "open only".

Regarding "playing at different times": You've already heard of this strange thing called "real life"?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

My player group is engaging in a policy of "open only", so there is no hiding in other game modes. Another reason why not only PP but also BGS work should be "open only".

That's the decision of your player group. Other player groups will do everything allowed by the game to win.

Regarding "playing at different times": You've already heard of this strange thing called "real life"?

Don't expect others to play at the same time as you do. Time zones are a thing. And if you are dedicated enough you can get up one hour early and play one hour in the morning, or just find out at what times the opponents play and shift your play time accordingly.
And other players might not have the same time constrains as you.

And then: Assuming a player can win 4 CZs in one hour, a PvP wing of 4 would waste 16 CZ wins while being on PvP parol for one hour. In short, if you intent to PvP while hoping to win a BGS conflict you already lost.

 

[Starman 1966]

I get your point with PvP. You mentioned earlier that's it's mostly a matter of human ressources. Things in ED can easily become a war of attrition. Don't play smart, just bring enough people. If you have enough people, flying PvP CAP is just the cherry on the cake.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I get your point with PvP. You mentioned earlier that's it's mostly a matter of human ressources. Things in ED can easily become a war of attrition. Don't play smart, just bring enough people. If you have enough people, flying PvP CAP is just the cherry on the cake.

Bring enough players and play smart. And PvP CAP can be fun if the opposition is into that too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The old CZs were mostly transaction based. Hand in every 100k combat bonds or so. Nothing to be gained from sitting around and healing each other except for CR farming. Heal beams are ridiculous in every way and need to be removed, but that's another story.

Mostly- but you could make a ton of cash with stacked missions (even if they were one after the other) this way.

And it doesn't matter if a CZ loss is -2 and a win +1 or vice versa. You can simply push and pull at the same time using borked game mechanics instead of doing CZs properly as it should have been intended.

Then like I said, human SLFs should be seen as disposable and not a 'loss'.

Plus- how many fighters can a class 7 hangar hold? From memory its like 15 x 2, with a low CZ taking about 7 kills to win. The only way to game that properly would to be in a PG, pick opposite sides and one person disgorges easy fighters to kill. Now, if you do that, does that count as a win and a loss, or just a win? I.e. is there a negative consequence to losing or is it seen as just 0 by the game?

Now, someone playing 'properly' in a medium or high has extra objectives that you can't get losing, so a win could be the base war value, plus the objectives on top of that. So, one high might cancel out one gamed loss a few times over, and that one carrier alone might not be enough to throw a high CZ.

The only real way would be to test it, induce an isolated war and lose on purpose to see what happens.

 

[Dommarraa]

Sounds to me that this is just PvP exploit mentality.
Exploits must be used to achieve any form of success, so invent exploits and use them, even if they are less effective.

 

[smiths121]

I get your point with PvP. You mentioned earlier that's it's mostly a matter of human ressources. Things in ED can easily become a war of attrition. Don't play smart, just bring enough people. If you have enough people, flying PvP CAP is just the cherry on the cake.

Why I quit the BGS.
Its become a numbers game, ok you have to do the work - but the BGS is a squadron+ thing now.
Ok you can still as a few players effect less populated areas, or make a difference in a player war by helping one side, but the days of the lone wolf being the king being able to effectively win BGS confrontations against larger odds, are probably over .... unless you want a second job.

Simon

 

[Morbad]

I can shoot down opposing NPCs faster than you can launch SLFs with a dual-bay hangar, thus winning the fight for the side of my choosing and having more fun in the process.

Anyway, the new CZ system is preferable to the old never ending trickle of forces hurling themselves into the breach until the CMDRs involved leave...not that there isn't a lot of room for further improvement.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sounds to me that this is just PvP exploit mentality.
Exploits must be used to achieve any form of success, so invent exploits and use them, even if they are less effective.

You don't need PvP to exploit the BGS. It already has huge gaping holes in it in solo.