Make conflict zones great again!

[CMDR-AD]

A sense of the progress of your side in a combat zone could be conveyed via a few audio callouts from NPC ships on your side.

"Woohaa! Another one down!" - This style of message, in a positive tone, indicates your side winning.

"Somebody help... I... I can't shake this bogey!" (goes to garbled static) - And from a negative perspective, indicates your side overall losing.

And it adds some atmospheric realism. On the flip side, any NPC vocals can quickly become repetitive.

 

[drzdeano]

COD/BF/GR/other FPS (fundamentally 2D Map) based missions - CTF, Base Assault, Base Defend, Escort (moving base defend), Interception (moving base assault) etc.

Essentially, adding any form of "objective" in such MMO circumstances typically involves a timer of some sort and typically cycling the objective because it often gets "beaten" - that is if it is done in such a way as to make any given player feel they are making head way. CZs are obviously not geared up for that kind of gameplay, and IMO should not be "shoe-horned" to fit it either. I have seen the end effect of such objective cycling and it does not make for good or interesting gameplay.

CZs in their current form are battlefields where the only goal is for two sides to fight things out in a form of limited warfare. I have seen a variety of ships spawn in Low Intensity zones including some T9 freighters, the T9s could be seen as supply ships from a meta-gaming perspective but ultimately due to fundamental nature of the zones it makes no difference as to what the target is except perhaps in terms of the size of bond awarded.

As I have already stated, the mission system is probably the better way of handling specific WAR objectives. The targets/objectives for those missions could be spawned over and above the basic war population of a given combat zone but IMO they should not be a standard feature of any given CZ. To change the baseline CZ to include objectives as standard would change their fundamental nature and ruin the experience for at least some players. Adding (perhaps CZ located) WAR objectives via station offered missions would be less disruptive and IMO is more in-line with the overall design approach of ED.

There are already station offered missions along these kinds of lines so it should be a relatively simple matter to increase their scope.

Ok , so if you want to officially take a mission from a station be briefed etc, sure why not?

but CZ's are designed as a show up and shoot.

i want all the cz's to feel like there is a battle going on for something important, not just mindless npc killing for the sake of it.

in your example a cz would have no "events" happening unless you took a mission for it. i would prefer dynamic missions that pop up every 3-5-10 minutes . allowing me to stay in a cz for extended time, rather than returning after each mission.

certainly dont want them to be compulsory,

eg

quick mission - requesting backup - ive got 3 bogeys on my tail
long mission - protect x ships for x time.
retreive cargo/escape pod/data box

just side missions, you can ignore them if you want, but i would hope they would have enough impact that ignoring them has its own risks.

you could spawn the irrelevant side missions from a random timer, but perhaps the more important missions , say protect "elite anaconda" might spawn when said npc conda drops below 75% hull.

 

[lefty1117]

yep I think objective-based CZs would be ideal. There's no reason why once the chain of events have completed, another CZ in the area shouldn't spawn. Maybe the objective of the combat zone could be tied to system state. Maybe in a Famine system, there's a CZ where you have to protect a convoy of food transports from waves of raiders. Perhaps in a Civil Unrest you have to evacuate innocents before the main battle starts. They could introduce CTF or some Arena-based mechanics into War CZs. Or, they could go a Battlefield-style route and have a draining tickets/resources type of CZ. Lots of options. I've long been a proponent of having objective based USS or CZs, especially of the cooperative type along the lines of Public Quests in other MMOs (think Warhammer, WoW: Legion).

 

[lenna]

i would prefer dynamic missions that pop up every 3-5-10 minutes.

That would create the kind of problem I have referred to and IMO would effectively ruin CZs. I have seen the effect of doing this in other games and it ruined them IMO.

Missions given by stations need not be single objectives that take 5-10 minutes to complete, they could involve a chain of events and perhaps even direct you across multiple CZs for different stages of a given mission. Plus there is nothing to stop multiple missions being taken at the same time.

Overall, my point was CZs should be kept as is so as to not ruin the experience for others. Adding objectives via missions or mission chains is the only approach that would achieve what you seem to want without affecting the baseline experience for others. It also makes it easier for the game to determine who gets what rewards for what missions and for the possibility of those (and their wing men) who have taken specific missions being spawned in separate instances of CZs from those who have not activated the same mission(s)/mission chains.

It makes no sense to implement cyclic missions since it would not improve the repetitiveness of CZs in any shape or form - it might do so for a SHORT time but unless you have the memory/attention span of a fish it could get old very quick.

 

[drzdeano]

That would create the kind of problem I have referred to and IMO would effectively ruin CZs. I have seen the effect of doing this in other games and it ruined them IMO.

Missions given by stations need not be single objectives that take 5-10 minutes to complete, they could involve a chain of events and perhaps even direct you across multiple CZs for different stages of a given mission. Plus there is nothing to stop multiple missions being taken at the same time.

Overall, my point was CZs should be kept as is so as to not ruin the experience for others. Adding objectives via missions or mission chains is the only approach that would achieve what you seem to want without affecting the baseline experience for others. It also makes it easier for the game to determine who gets what rewards for what missions and for the possibility of those (and their wing men) who have taken specific missions being spawned in separate instances of CZs from those who have not activated the same mission(s)/mission chains.

It makes no sense to implement cyclic missions since it would not improve the repetitiveness of CZs in any shape or form - it might do so for a SHORT time but unless you have the memory/attention span of a fish it could get old very quick.

i see your point, i wouldnt want the same missions being spammed at me every 10 minutes. i like the concept of a chain of war-related missions, but would hope it doesnt get reduced to travel to A>fight a bit>travel to B>fight a bit more>RTB.

i understand why you would want to leave cz's untouched as not to "annoy" the folks currently happy with them. From my point of view those people are just standing in the way of progress. Like alot of folk around here .

But as i did mention , these dynamic side missions would not be forced upon you. no mission critical updates here. Saying that, if the only friendly anaconda remaining spawns a "requesting assistance" side mission, and you ignore it. Do so at own risk.

 

[lenna]

From my point of view those people are just standing in the way of progress. Like alot of folk around here.

That is a narrow minded perspective IMO, it is not standing in the way of progress to be able to want to play the game their way.

My proposal was ultimately a compromise that requires an opt-in and has a notional target end-state/goal. The missions/chains could theoretically be done via comms messages on entry to CZs (or joining a CZ faction) but that is little different from critical mission updates in multi-stage opt-in missions. However, the distinction between your approach and mine is that those that are only interested in the combat side would not need to worry about being pestered with random NPC "optional" mission comms when all they are going into the CZ for is a quick (or long) brawl.

Ultimately, it has nothing to do with progress - just keeping game play interesting without introducing annoying or irritating mechanics. The cyclic spawning or dynamic side missions (which should require an opt-in) notified by the mission update/comms system would fall into the annoying or irritating category. Opting in at a near by station or base could have another benefit since it could direct you to an appropriate CZ too - sometimes the CZs are not in the most obvious locations and it is not always easy to find a CZ of the desired difficulty level.

Even Low Intensity CZs can turn into fur-balls at random that distractions such as side mission alerts could be enough to put people off.

Theoretically, it could be done unofficially by scripting of background voice communications (e.g. SOS calls) but that would probably be a lot harder for FD to implement effectively IMO.

The mission system UI in our ships is not exactly ideal and could do with some improvement to make it easier to use when doing other things. I have found that the current random mission updates can arrive at the most inopportune moments at times (e.g. in the middle of a fight, or while trying to concentrate on docking/landing)

 

[drzdeano]

im all for people playing their own way, but i dont think missions are the answer to making cz's more engaging anyway, dynamic or station-given, they might give the player some direction and extra credits, but as mentioned , if you dont take a mission nothing changes.

i guess i dont get as distracted by comm chatter, messages i can ignore dont annoy me, as long as they dont spam the chat so you cant see important info.

i aim trying to think of reasons or a purpose for these space battles,some sort of grander purpose, but without changing the scope of a CZ away from a Team DM , it wont make sense.

 

[lenna]

im all for people playing their own way, but i dont think missions are the answer to making cz's more engaging anyway, dynamic or station-given, they might give the player some direction and extra credits, but as mentioned , if you dont take a mission nothing changes.

Errm... you are after goal driven game play based on your OP... not everyone is... and in ED if you want goal driven gameplay then you take missions, it is that simple.

CZs are what they are and I see no good reason to change their fundamental nature just because a few are essentially bored with them. The reasons for them being there are simple and obvious, they bring the feeling of unbridled war without splattering a given system with uncontained conflict. They provide a means for those interested in engaging in some combat an easy area to do so without risking gaining a bounty - still theoretically possible from friendly fire incidents but accidental breaches of rules of engagement are less likely IME. They also provide a means to raise points for one side or another of the BGS war state. They are essentially a fundamental part of supporting the BGS.

As are missions... one is intentionally goal driven the other is probably intentionally not.

I suppose there could be new types of zones that are similar to combat zones but provide something like what you are asking for but without replacing the existing CZs. Even then, that to my mind is little different from my "mission based" proposal. Ultimately, it seems you are more interested in changing what is there for everyone rather than adding to the experience (the latter is more inline with your claims about wanting to see progress).

 

[drzdeano]

not quite

in a sense , yes i would like more goal driven gameplay , even if it is just to HIGHLIGHT the existing mechanics, which imo are too subtle.

A system at war should be , a warzone.

imo conflict zones in their current form should be a feature of CQC, not OPEN, unless there is some greater purpose or objective. War is not a bunch of random deathmatches!!
no matter how you put it , cz are just mindless killing. And i guess thats what you want. That has its place in an arcade style game enviroment, not so much a simulated galaxy.

Wars are fought for control and strategic reasons.

i would like a little more longer term strategy to determine my actions in the conflict zone.

What is the status of battle in the conflict zone? are we winning/losing? should i help here or at the other zone?
Will this particular zone be of any real value to my faction? who cares if the pirate faction wants x planet 40,000 ls away

 

[lenna]

War is not a bunch of random deathmatches!!

Depending on how a given war is waged, it can be - not all battles make sense at a local level. There have been a few cases in human history of pointless battles, or apparently pointless battles.

Wars are fought for control and strategic reasons.

Ok (not entirely true... see earlier response), but denying one side of resources by destroying their combat vessels is a strategy of sorts. CZs can be considered similar to the battlefields of medieval times which at a most basic level can be considered "Random Team Death Matches" to a degree. Just because conflict is happening in a particular region does not automatically imply it is over control of said region - though in a lot of cases (not all) in history it has been part of the reason.

i would like a little more longer term strategy to determine my actions in the conflict zone.

What is the status of battle in the conflict zone? are we winning/losing? should i help here or at the other zone?
Will this particular zone be of any real value to my faction? who cares if the pirate faction wants x planet 40,000 ls away

This part makes a bit more sense, the location of CZs should probably have some kind of logic and meaning but in some cases factions are simply fighting for influence and neither side actually controls any section of space. In such cases, the CZ locations are largely arbitrary in all likelihood.

To answer your question about the pirate faction though, if the planet in question has pristine valuable resources or a high abundance of rare materials then it could be important to some players. In addition, owning a station/base gives a faction a passive method for gaining greater influence in a system. In short, denying a given Pirate Faction control of a given region of space limits their ability to gain greater control - even if that region of space is effectively worthless.

In essence, I have no objection to CZs spawning in areas that make some kind of visible impact to the game - e.g. if they win a battle in a CZ in orbit of a planet they gain control of that planet and everything in immediate orbit of it. Currently, this does not appear to be the case in ALL circumstances. Whether it is true in ANY circumstances is unknown to me, but perhaps FD could shed some light on this?

 

[CMDR-AD]

When I imagine objective based elements in a Combat Zone, it would be things like:

First example is essentially a sort of "Assassination" mission, all happens in-CZ, completely optional, either care about this target, otherwise it's just radio/atmosphere chatter.
Voice radio callout: "Heads up! A veteran enemy ship/wing has just dropped into the battle."
Inbox gets a message listing the target names/ships and reward.

Second example is like a special CZ USS, spawned for CMDRs immediately after they leave a CZ area. Again, completely optional, play it or ignore.
Inbox reports "Military Target Reported", message lists target name, faction, and ship/role in one of a few types:
A.) Supply convoy: A freighter ship hauling military cargo supported by a small wing of fighters.
B.) A mobile listening post: Python doing radio/intel duty, supported by a small wing of fighters.
C.) A fuel convoy: Type-9 filled with fuel tanks, supported by a small wing.

Any spawned hostiles are the same faction the CMDR had been fighting in the CZ they just left. If a CMDR decides to play, they will shortly be joined by a few friendly NPC support fighters, maybe an Anaconda. Destroy all hostiles in the USS for a reward, or if not able, any kills count toward Combat Bonds.

Also great would be CZ spawning on planet surfaces. In these cases, ground based POI military elements could be spawned in as (again, optional) targets in a format much the same as the first example idea. Destroy the weapons turret. Destroy the enemy NPC ship wing before it can complete a troop/supply drop on the planet surface.

 

[ArchEmperor]

I propose for an assassination mission in Conflict Zones, we get an antagonist that we are trying to reach in the combat zone. He/she is protected by multiple waves of wings that we need to either trick or kill to get to the final showdown between the two champions: you and him/her. Maybe our target is lurking at the helm of a giant capital ship, maybe inside a planetary base, a station, as a pilot of a smaller ship or even inside a cave.

During this battle, we get some chatter from our enemy targets, who taunts us or calls for help depending on how things are going in the battle scene. From all this information we need to decide at several important junctions what to do next: if we make the wrong decision it could cost us the battle. As an example: If the enemy calls for fighter swarm support, we need to take cover using our capital ships or asteroids until the swarm has been defeated. If we make the wrong choice, it could be seriously difficult to stay alive. With each wave, at least one such tactical choice have to be made, and it is always a bit different for each instance. Procedurally calculated.

I would call that feedback immersion. It could be applied in different forms for any objective type missions in conflict zones.

 

[lenna]

When I imagine objective based elements in a Combat Zone, it would be things like:

First example is essentially a sort of "Assassination" mission, all happens in-CZ, completely optional, either care about this target, otherwise it's just radio/atmosphere chatter.
Voice radio callout: "Heads up! A veteran enemy ship/wing has just dropped into the battle."
Inbox gets a message listing the target names/ships and reward.

Second example is like a special CZ USS, spawned for CMDRs immediately after they leave a CZ area. Again, completely optional, play it or ignore.
Inbox reports "Military Target Reported", message lists target name, faction, and ship/role in one of a few types:
A.) Supply convoy: A freighter ship hauling military cargo supported by a small wing of fighters.
B.) A mobile listening post: Python doing radio/intel duty, supported by a small wing of fighters.
C.) A fuel convoy: Type-9 filled with fuel tanks, supported by a small wing.

Any spawned hostiles are the same faction the CMDR had been fighting in the CZ they just left. If a CMDR decides to play, they will shortly be joined by a few friendly NPC support fighters, maybe an Anaconda. Destroy all hostiles in the USS for a reward, or if not able, any kills count toward Combat Bonds.

Also great would be CZ spawning on planet surfaces. In these cases, ground based POI military elements could be spawned in as (again, optional) targets in a format much the same as the first example idea. Destroy the weapons turret. Destroy the enemy NPC ship wing before it can complete a troop/supply drop on the planet surface.

I propose for an assassination mission in Conflict Zones, we get an antagonist that we are trying to reach in the combat zone. He/she is protected by multiple waves of wings that we need to either trick or kill to get to the final showdown between the two champions: you and him/her. Maybe our target is lurking at the helm of a giant capital ship, maybe inside a planetary base, a station, as a pilot of a smaller ship or even inside a cave.

During this battle, we get some chatter from our enemy targets, who taunts us or calls for help depending on how things are going in the battle scene. From all this information we need to decide at several important junctions what to do next: if we make the wrong decision it could cost us the battle. As an example: If the enemy calls for fighter swarm support, we need to take cover using our capital ships or asteroids until the swarm has been defeated. If we make the wrong choice, it could be seriously difficult to stay alive. With each wave, at least one such tactical choice have to be made, and it is always a bit different for each instance. Procedurally calculated.

I would call that feedback immersion. It could be applied in different forms for any objective type missions in conflict zones.

To do either without a station opt-in of some sort (e.g. like a CG sign-up OR formal mission/mission-chain sign-up) would still be disruptive for people who like the game play as it is...

I have seen comparable approaches taken to such events in other games and I do not like the end result personally.

Edit...

There is an idea - implement war sign-up and status reporting using an interface similar to the community goals. The war points could be displayed in a similar manner to CG contribution levels and opting in to the War Effort for one side or another would result in special missions/additional spawns meant for the signed up players. If there are no-signed up players in a given CZ then the missions/additional spawns do not happen. Completion/Failure of these missions should have a significant positive/negative effect on the war effort though and they should not be easy wins. In addition, signing up to the War Effort would either automatically sign you up to the side you opted in to OR inhibit you selecting the other side. There could be CG type bonus pay-outs for top contributors (in terms of War Effort points - this could extend beyond just CZ based spawns/missions though).

Another possibility would be to use Power Play type mechanics to handle deserters (those that formally abandon the War Effort) and defectors (those that try to sign up to one side then another).

There are quite a few possibilities along these kind of lines.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

It seems that people are expecting 2D FPS Combat type objectives in CZs which to my mind is unrealistic and defeats their apparent ultimate purpose - a place where you can engage in largely unconstrained combat and be rewarded for it. You want objectives? That is what the mission system is for.

Start putting non-mission attached objectives in CZs and you end up with the stupid repetitive timed events that have ruined certain other games. No thank you.

Want to add those kinds of events to CQC/Arena and it makes ALOT more sense, in the open game it is just a stupid idea IMO.

I don't see it that way at all.

All the architecture for the most popular poll options (options 2 & 3) are already within the game-namely the ability to generate missions "on the fly", & the ability of missions to spawn semi-persistent "Points of Interest". I also don't see how any of the options listed above detract from the "open-ended free-for-all" that you describe. Any missions/goals that get spawned within a CZ could be entirely optional, as "on the fly" missions currently are, nor does every single CZ have to spawn a mission objective or a structure to defend/defeat. All it would do is to add a little bit more *variety* to something which-lets be honest-is already a little bit repetitive.

Seriously, how does an optional task of "protecting a Civilian Convoy" or "protecting a Listening Post/Military Outpost/Checkpoint etc" ruin the game?

 

[Marc_Hicks]

So, to refresh, what would make systems in a War state-& their conflict Zones-more interesting would be:

-a temporary reduction in Security Level-thus making interdiction more frequent, & security responses more limited.

-a genuine sense of danger if you're friendly or allied to one of the factions involved in said War/Civil War.

-Optional objectives/missions that can pop-up after you choose a faction in a Conflict Zone.

-Conflict Zones that move over time.

-Conflict Zones more often centered around some physical object/objective (the taking or loss of which could trigger the moving of the conflict zone, as mentioned above).

-Conflict Zones just above the surface of planets (within 3-10km of planetary surfaces).

 

[lenna]

...

I have probably explained things better (or atleast in more detail) in my latter posts.

Ultimately, the short version is there needs to be an opt-in mechanism before any random CZ based missions/objectives are put forward to the player. The rational behind this is that not everyone will necessarily be interested in objective based combat or to be pestered with canvasing to join such activities. Random in-space missions are only tolerable as it currently stands because they are relatively rare occurrences, what some seem to want would increase the frequency to intolerable levels in CZs IMO.

IMO Probably the ideal way to achieve what some seem to want is to add a "War Effort" mechanic which is implemented like a hybrid between community goals, normal missions and power play. That way CZs would be unaffected unless you sign up to the War Effort which implies you are formally supporting a side and not just engaging in some mercenary freelance work (current CZs).

 

[ArchEmperor]

I have probably explained things better (or atleast in more detail) in my latter posts.

Ultimately, the short version is there needs to be an opt-in mechanism before any random CZ based missions/objectives are put forward to the player. The rational behind this is that not everyone will necessarily be interested in objective based combat or to be pestered with canvasing to join such activities. Random in-space missions are only tolerable as it currently stands because they are relatively rare occurrences, what some seem to want would increase the frequency to intolerable levels in CZs IMO.

IMO Probably the ideal way to achieve what some seem to want is to add a "War Effort" mechanic which is implemented like a hybrid between community goals, normal missions and power play. That way CZs would be unaffected unless you sign up to the War Effort which implies you are formally supporting a side and not just engaging in some mercenary freelance work (current CZs).

What if we let there be optional mission stations inside the conflict zones? Like landing on/in a capital ship to get high danger missions that either increase the difficulty level or progress the conflict story. It could be totally optional, but welcome in cases the repetition becomes unbearable.

So I am in normal conflict zone, killing ships just as we use too. I then see this friendly capital ship with a neon sign on the side saying "Sideybar" or something. I go there, still under fire of course, and land. A mission rooster pops up and I see:
Welcome warrior! This is the Admirals orders:
"Assassinate" -> sub menu different targets on the opposing side or deserters whatever.
"Capital targets" -> sub menu different targets in the system.
"Search&Destroy" -> sub menu different targets in the system.
"Hold&defend" -> sub menu to different targets to defend.
"Progression" -> sub menu to current strategic situation and tactical targets to be won ( conflict zones ).
etc etc...

This allows for optional missions/war efforts, with the normal mechanic untouched.

The "progression" is very interesting also because if we start at some asteroid field or a small moon, we can then level up, moving the battlescene as we do, moving to harder and more difficult conflict zones until we reach the opposing factions home planet.

With a big happy ending parade on the planet surface with confetti raining down on our happy faces when we get a symbolic medal and a kiss from the royalty.

 

[lenna]

What if we let there be optional mission stations inside the conflict zones? Like landing on/in a capital ship to get high danger missions that either increase the difficulty level or progress the conflict story.

Not sure that is entirely viable in all cases... most combat zones are nowhere near a station or a capital ship IME.

The simplest and least disruptive option while still offering the goal driven war focused combat IMO is the "War Effort" CG/PP style approach with the sign up (notionally available from any station/base in the given system) effectively enabling mission updates/random mission invitations (or giving access to a - perhaps in-flight accessible - War Effort mission selection screen - similar to what you describe).

Trying to add stations/capital-ships to ALL conflict zones would fundamentally change their nature and could introduce other issues especially since a combat zone is not an isolated bubble, it is a region of space which you can both enter (and leave in essence) without transiting super-cruise - though low/high-waking is the only real way to escape opponents that are chasing you. Alternatively, tying the optional mechanic to CZs that spawn near stations/capital ships would also limit the opportunities for missions to be made available to players.

Ultimately though, it is all primarily a pipe dream and I strongly doubt anything will change on this front anytime soon (if ever). Maybe when they start work on Season 3 this all may be significantly reviewed but I think there are more important things for FD to work on.

CZs work and do their job for now, and there is plenty of variety in the current mission system. Threads like these just seem to be primarily full of complaints from those that are extremely combat focused and appear to be bored with the game... the first line of the OP says it all. Any claims that "combat (seems to be/is) the main focus of ED" are just and typically are a prelude for an agenda targeted at increasing developer focus on combat. There are plenty of other things that need attention and we do not need an increased focus on combat IMO.

 

[Cmdr Ultra]

Boss ships, advanced AI and fully engineered NPC's. I leave my Corvette in dock and fly a Gunship because the game feels to easy otherwise.

 

[ArchEmperor]

Not sure that is entirely viable in all cases... most combat zones are nowhere near a station or a capital ship IME.

The simplest and least disruptive option while still offering the goal driven war focused combat IMO is the "War Effort" CG/PP style approach with the sign up (notionally available from any station/base in the given system) effectively enabling mission updates/random mission invitations (or giving access to a - perhaps in-flight accessible - War Effort mission selection screen - similar to what you describe).

Trying to add stations/capital-ships to ALL conflict zones would fundamentally change their nature and could introduce other issues especially since a combat zone is not an isolated bubble, it is a region of space which you can both enter (and leave in essence) without transiting super-cruise - though low/high-waking is the only real way to escape opponents that are chasing you. Alternatively, tying the optional mechanic to CZs that spawn near stations/capital ships would also limit the opportunities for missions to be made available to players.

Ultimately though, it is all primarily a pipe dream and I strongly doubt anything will change on this front anytime soon (if ever). Maybe when they start work on Season 3 this all may be significantly reviewed but I think there are more important things for FD to work on.

CZs work and do their job for now, and there is plenty of variety in the current mission system. Threads like these just seem to be primarily full of complaints from those that are extremely combat focused and appear to be bored with the game... the first line of the OP says it all. Any claims that "combat (seems to be/is) the main focus of ED" are just and typically are a prelude for an agenda targeted at increasing developer focus on combat. There are plenty of other things that need attention and we do not need an increased focus on combat IMO.

Instead of capital ship, it could just be a radio transmission option. No disruption whatsoever. Or even radio chatter, no pledging, just do it if you want too, still happens around you somewhere.