The Problem With The New CZ Mechanism in War Resolution

tl;dr version: The best way to win CZ "battles" might be to joining the faction of the side you want to LOSE.

Dissertation length argument:
Before Chapter Four dropped, CZ faction balance seemed relatively equal. A player would drop in, there'd be a war being fought (to little or no effect on either side), you'd contribute some amount, and ONLY player contribution (bonds being turned in) really mattered in the determination of the war's outcome.

Then someone came up with the bright idea to have a "Battle Won" and "Battle Lost" mechanism attached to CZ's, with an attendant influence gain or loss. Which sounds cool ...on the surface. Until you actually spend more than 6 seconds gaming the design idea out.

And to that seemingly ill-considered decision, a designer introduced events where the NPC lethality on one side or another got tilted significantly (e.g., the Spec Ops ships that drop in and are much more lethal than vanilla CZ participants). And while those events seem triggered by the presence of a player -- we don't really know that, do we? But even if they do require a player, now that CZ actions contribute influence beyond just combat bond turn-in, players could be dropping in, triggering events, then leaving (or remaining, but only on the periphery, making little or no actual combat contribution), confident that the faction suddenly left to fight against a newly introduced Spec Ops wing would almost certainly lose the battle, resulting in an influence boost or loss -- even without any combat bonds being turned in for that battle.

Unless that influence gain or loss is strictly some bogus announcement, without actual effect, then even the least combat skilled of pilots can tilt battles for the faction they champion by joining their opponent's team, triggering the opposing Spec Ops wing to drop in on the side they actually want to win, then hanging back and letting the NPCs clean up and win the battle. Wash, rinse, repeat.

In this way, a lone pilot can just fly from CZ to CZ joining the enemy side, killing very little, letting the new CZ mechanism win his faction's battles for him and awarding that influence toward the resolution of the war.

That's a problem.

Change my mind.
 
Last edited:
Or, now that CZs are more persistent, and have finite battles, to improve your chances of winning a CZ, first declare for the faction you want to LOSE the war, trigger the Spec Ops wing to drop in on the side you DO want to win, then exit the CZ, re-enter and (this time) declare for the side you DO want to win, then fight alongside your own Spec Ops NPCs to clean up the CZ in short order.

And if you occasionally have to kill a ship or two of your chosen faction to bring this about, just never turn in those combat bonds, so they make no difference in the war.
 
There doesn't seem to be any conflict-final influence effects over and above the boost from winning. I don't think there is any transaction boost from r completing the CZ either. In other words, I think the CZ objective mechanics are simply window dressing. Transactions are still all that count.
 
Last edited:
I had already thought of similar with megaships.
Choose attack megaship
Blow the hell out the wanted attackers

Defenders win, plus you get bounties to hand in for the defenders
Haven't tried it, but seems legit
 
...I think the CZ objective mechanics are simply window dressing. Transactions are still all that count.

Seems like a lot of game-client engineering resources to spend to display nothing but misleading (false!) messages to players. Is that pattern followed elsewhere in the game, where you're given messaging on BGS influence that's completely false? Because if your hope is wrong...
 
If a player leaves the combat zone before it is resolved I don't think there will be any win/loss effects.

If the player stays till the end and let's his faction lose, it doesn't make any difference too.

It's only winning that awards influence points.

So I don't see any possiblity of abuse.

If the other side has no players in it and only NPC win, I don't think this is calculated as a "win" for that faction. It's just a missed opportunity by the player to gain some influence for his faction.
 
Last edited:
It's only winning that awards influence points.

So that's another vote for, "Frontier coded in BGS influence messaging that is blatantly false." Because staying and losing definitely results in messaging indicating there is an influence effect.

And, especially in Open, CZ's have persistence, so if you trigger a spec ops wing, then leave, then return (perhaps choosing a different side), they're still in there fighting, right? Leaving my latter exploit still a possibility any time one spec ops wing drops in without a countering one from the other side (which I have seen).
 
It's possible this is a bug -- that events like spec ops wings showing up, or correspondents showing up, should always happen for BOTH sides. But I've seen instances of both those events where they only showed up for one faction and not the other.
 
[...]" Because staying and losing definitely results in messaging indicating there is an influence effect.

And, especially in Open, CZ's have persistence, so if you trigger a spec ops wing, then leave, then return (perhaps choosing a different side), they're still in there fighting, right? Leaving my latter exploit still a possibility any time one spec ops wing drops in without a countering one from the other side (which I have seen).

Right, if that's the case there clearly is something wrong.
 
Seems like a lot of game-client engineering resources to spend to display nothing but misleading (false!) messages to players. Is that pattern followed elsewhere in the game, where you're given messaging on BGS influence that's completely false? Because if your hope is wrong...

Well they were never dynamic messages in the same way as the ones you refer to but generally as far as misleading messages are concerned, every war-state mission board mission suggested that you can help the faction win the war by completing it, which was always a flat-out lie because the only way to actually influence a war was handing in combat bonds.
 
Back
Top Bottom