CONFLICT ZONES - WAR - COMBAT (PvP, i.e., OPEN, in particular)

OK,

I don't know enough about how the war and civil war mechanic works to provide a comprehensive idea - so this idea is going to be fairly rough, and will need others to tidy up.

Basically, when entering a system at war/civil war, I think it'd be a good idea to automatically assign a player to one side of the war (if that player has higher influence with one of the factions at war - the player is automatically assigned to fight on behalf of that faction).

If a player is allied to both factions at war, the player must choose a side - impossible to remain neutral as both allies demand support of their ally in the fight).

A player that has neutral faction influence is not forced to choose a side, but can choose a side (on immediate entry into the system) if they so desire. The result will be that the player can interdict and engage in combat legitimately with any member of the opposing faction(s) that are at war with your ally.

Also, sometimes when flying into a combat zone a warning appears that says something like 'Entering Combat (or Conflict) Zone', and you get one saying 'Leaving Combat Zone' when exiting that area. Normally a player must then drop into a combat zone to engage in combat with NPC players.

Perhaps these combat/conflict zones can be extended so that any ship in the combat zone (including neutral ships) can be interdicted and engaged in combat legitimately by any party that is at war due to the fact that the ship has entered a conflict area - no safeguards should be in place, or police presence, to aid any ship that ventures into such conflict zones. This would permit pirates and others to legitimately engage any pilot that may be in the system lending aid to the war - (possibly to the other faction) - while maintaining the pretence that they are neutral traders and the like.

As I said, needs some fleshing out and development, but it'd be nice to see Conflict Zones and wars have a wider effect than just the signal sources players have to drop in to.
 
This will ruin BGS game. I can support other faction against another faction to promote my faction. Or even I can fight against my faction to let them lose in order to get a station for another faction and then to promote my faction for other station and fight for it...
 
I don't like idea of auto assignment. I am free pilot and I don't care both sides and war result. All I'm interested in is missions and their rewards. I may have better reputation in some factions just because of my previous actions (as they did provide better missions which I completed).
 
This is already in with Powerplay, where you are autoassigned from your pledge and is logical. It makes no sense BGS wise as sometimes you want to fight for someone you don't like.

Eventually you become hostile to the opposing faction anyway.
 
A lot of what you seem to be looking for already exists in conflicts in open between player factions. Ever considered Colonia?
 
Actually I'd like the idea of using the "chose side" option when entering a system, not when entering a combat zone.
Perhaps with a third option "neutral"
That would basically allow PvP in a war or make it more obvious who is fighting for whom.

Our current modus operandi in Colonia at the moment is: see unknown CMDR, pull him, ask him which side he is, and then shooty shooty or o7, depending if answer is right or wrong... by having to chose when entering the system this would be made more obvious.

I'm not seeing how this will ruin BGS (except making things like undermining "your" own faction more difficult, which makes sense...)

Feel free to criticize my brainstorming, though.
 
Some interesting points here.

The primary thrust of my idea was to make a system in a War or Civil War state actually feel like that upon entry. Currently, it's like pretty much any other system - besides the fact one can drop into conflict zones. Being asked to choose a side, or being assigned a side due to your level of reputation with a faction in a system, would ensure that you know you might face some combat with the opposition when going into the war zone - unless neutral. I don't see why a player who has been supporting a faction that is at war having increased their reputation/influence with that faction deliberately (or not), should be of the mindset they can now choose to be neutral when they may have cordial, friendly or allied status with a faction (and the faction asks for your support). Of course, there should be an option to DECLINE your support - and then you should rightly LOSE influence and reputation.

Seems to me, you goodly folks who like to manipulate the BGS want it all in your favour, and nothing there to upset the balance, and cause you to lose reputation/influence - or have to actually backup your allied status when push comes to shove. Pathetic really.
 
I don't think that this fits into wars as they are currently implemented in the game. Currently, wars bear every hallmark of a gentleman's agreement proxy war. The locations for the fights are all away from important infrastructure, shipping and civilians are protected outside these zones by a full system security and only a bare minimum amount of assets change hands even in the event of one side achieving victory.

However, I have suggested for a "more war than war" system state - Total War. Total war is a state of war that sees such a significant blurring of the lines between civilian and military to the point where it might as well not exist, as even "civilians" are just soldiers waiting to be recruited at worst and individuals indirectly supporting the war effort with their day jobs and taxes at best. Obviously, this would coexist alongside the current war state and could even be implemented as an escalation of it if a war between two factions drags on without a clear winner.

This would be a full "winner takes all" conflict that occurs between similarly powerful yet heavily opposed factions (not sharing superpowers, different government types) that would open up any systems controlled by either of them into a fully fledged anarchy (systems they are present in that are controlled by other factions would be treated as neutral ground) where unrestrained conflict occurs in basically every single instance and anyone entering the system for the first time during the way would be required to state an affiliation that cannot be easily changed for the duration of the war - even if that affiliation is neutral. Supporting either of the factions via trading or non-combat missions despite selecting "neutral" runs the risk of you becoming affiliated even if you don't engage in combat. Victors would claim all of the loser's assets, remove them from all non-home systems, move in to replace them and claim all the influence in their systems. Combat bonds would become obtainable in all instances when shooting the opposing faction's ships as even unarmed traders would be seen as legitimate military targets.

Pilots allied to one of the factions would be demanded to support their faction, rejecting this would result in the relationship to the faction being immediately set to "unfriendly" if neutral is selected as well as a significant bounty being placed on the player for this betrayal. Further penalties could then be applied if they actively engage in combat against their former allies, such as bounties being placed on them equal to the combat bonds they gain.

Another thing that I'd like to see would be for deploying hardpoints in a CZ without selecting a side to cause you to be recognised as an enemy for both factions, possibly after a warning to prevent accidental deployments being an issue. After all, if you turn up to a battlefield while brandishing fully powered weapons, most people would treat you as a potential enemy as you aren't clearly an ally.
 
I don't think that this fits into wars as they are currently implemented in the game. Currently, wars bear every hallmark of a gentleman's agreement proxy war. The locations for the fights are all away from important infrastructure, shipping and civilians are protected outside these zones by a full system security and only a bare minimum amount of assets change hands even in the event of one side achieving victory.

However, I have suggested for a "more war than war" system state - Total War. Total war is a state of war that sees such a significant blurring of the lines between civilian and military to the point where it might as well not exist, as even "civilians" are just soldiers waiting to be recruited at worst and individuals indirectly supporting the war effort with their day jobs and taxes at best. Obviously, this would coexist alongside the current war state and could even be implemented as an escalation of it if a war between two factions drags on without a clear winner.

This would be a full "winner takes all" conflict that occurs between similarly powerful yet heavily opposed factions (not sharing superpowers, different government types) that would open up any systems controlled by either of them into a fully fledged anarchy (systems they are present in that are controlled by other factions would be treated as neutral ground) where unrestrained conflict occurs in basically every single instance and anyone entering the system for the first time during the way would be required to state an affiliation that cannot be easily changed for the duration of the war - even if that affiliation is neutral. Supporting either of the factions via trading or non-combat missions despite selecting "neutral" runs the risk of you becoming affiliated even if you don't engage in combat. Victors would claim all of the loser's assets, remove them from all non-home systems, move in to replace them and claim all the influence in their systems. Combat bonds would become obtainable in all instances when shooting the opposing faction's ships as even unarmed traders would be seen as legitimate military targets.

Pilots allied to one of the factions would be demanded to support their faction, rejecting this would result in the relationship to the faction being immediately set to "unfriendly" if neutral is selected as well as a significant bounty being placed on the player for this betrayal. Further penalties could then be applied if they actively engage in combat against their former allies, such as bounties being placed on them equal to the combat bonds they gain.

Another thing that I'd like to see would be for deploying hardpoints in a CZ without selecting a side to cause you to be recognised as an enemy for both factions, possibly after a warning to prevent accidental deployments being an issue. After all, if you turn up to a battlefield while brandishing fully powered weapons, most people would treat you as a potential enemy as you aren't clearly an ally.
Some interesting thoughts here.

My own ideas are to tweak the current design without too much work or development having to be done to bring about the change. Whether or not that's the case with such ideas, I don't really know.

The fact is, I'm extremely doubtful Frontier or its development team spend much time, if any, looking at these suggestions - we're probably all speaking to ourselves.

Little ever changes in the game related to some of the much needed adjustments the game requires.

It seems to me that Frontier have done the 'Beyond' season, pretended to ask for feedback and listen to the 'community', and implemented the changes they had planned all along.

Since 'Beyond', they haven't bothered, as far as I can tell, looking at feedback to see how their changes to things like crime and punishment are working. They've just shifted gears and are now focused on 2020. Besides Fleet Carriers and ARX, the game is probably going to stay and play like it is until the next purchasable content is released. At least then, we'll all find thing to complain about and come up with further futile suggestions for the game that no one pays attention to, or reads (never mind actually implement).

Still, thanks for your input - at least someone has bothered to take a bit of notice and make a comment. Much more than Frontier ever does - never a whisper of a response on the suggestions thread from anyone in Frontier about ideas - good, bad, under consideration, not going to be implemented, etc. Pretty poor, to be perfectly frank.
 
Top Bottom