7 replies to this topic

[Bront]

Currently, attacks and defenses are splitting forces against each other, and the easiest defense for a planet is to not engage the attackers.

So, cut down on the planets being attacked. Have each boarder alternate which side is on the attack for that cycle.

Example: Steiner and CJF boarder. Steiners are currently attacking a planet. Win or lose, CJW goes on the offensive next attack period, and Stieners are now on defense.

What this does is reduce the number of planets for each faction to attack or defend (just about in half), so faction forces are less split up. However, it also makes each planet be a larger struggle, since if Jade Falcon and Steiner are currently going at each other, all their forces have to meet at the same planet, as opposed to what tends to happen now where large pre-mades tend to go on the offensive, and often miss each other. It also means that you can't have a Pyrrhic victory where both sides lose a planet to the other, and it ups the significance of each planetary struggle.

So, it's an easy way to create single fronts in the war, and reduce the CW queue spread, and while it may reduce the number of planets that change hand slightly, it will make those conflicts feel that much more like epic wars where multiple units fight along side each other.

Practically, you'd want to have alternate fronts attacking and defending. For example, Liao might be Attacking against Davion and Steiner, while defending against Marrik and Kurita, and then swap the next drop cycle.

The alternating method also means that each zone ends up on the other side of the conflict the next day, since there are 3 cycles run per day.

Pros include:

• Reduced wait time for a drop (Less other queues for folks to be in, so it should be easier to find a drop)
  
• You can no longer simply ignore your defense and continue your attack, as you'll lose ground in the war
  
• Conflicts on a larger % of planets, as reducing the number of planets you can drop on by 50% without a population reduction should mean more active planets that are being fought over.
  
• More varied conflicts for groups, as groups are more likely to drop against each other (funneled towards the same queues)
  
• More active planets feel more like they're actually being fought over.

Cons include:

• Players can't simply attack or defend against the same faction every cycle, as if they want to go at the same faction, they'll have to do a little of both, or if they want to only attack or defend, they'll have to find another faction to drop against. (I see this as a pro, but some players may not)
  
• With less queues, it could backlog a bit if it's a CW heavy weekend (though PGI could roll out extra planets easily enough if that's the case).

I mostly think it's a Win/Win, and I know I'm not the only person who's floated an idea like this here or on Reddit.

Edited by Bront, 09 June 2015 - 03:34 PM.

[50 50]

I think that would help to create more battles.
With 20 or so planets all available at the moment, it seems excessive, especially when you view the list and see that only one or two are actually being fought over.
Slimming it down as you have suggested isn't going to hurt and you could slim it even further and have no more than 2 conflicts per faction and change that up week to week.

Marking each conflict with the banner of the two competing factions would also help. It's nice to see which sides are involved in the fight, sometimes it isn't obvious from the map. This would help players identify which battles are relevant to their faction when looking at the map.

Adding incentives to each of the conflicts is the other part.
At the moment it's just Clan vs IS and just for territory.
Inter house warfare seems non-existent.
Some reason to engage in the battles on different borders, and different reasons for each as well so it is a unique objective.

[Hobo Dan]

Less planets would help focus battles. Couple that with 4v4 scouting missions that help determine where the next battle will take place.

[Bront]

50 50 said:

At the moment it's just Clan vs IS and just for territory.
Inter house warfare seems non-existent.

Inter house warfare is stagnent because a few of the houses refuse to defend their own planets, and only attack, or don't engage particular boarders at all. This would help funnel people into conflicts easier.

[jay35]

Good stuff. Btw, it's "border".

[Bront]

jay35, on 06 June 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:

Good stuff. Btw, it's "border".

Fixed

[GI Journalist]

This seems like a possible fix to the CW empty bucket problem. It would have saved us from missing several drops during this evening's gaming.

[Bront]

This came up again elsewhere, so I'd like to put this back up towards the top as it's a good idea that would help fix the CW Bucket issues it has, while making struggles on some boarders more epic.