FW Adjacency Frontline SystemI

FW Adjacency Frontline System

There have been many ideas circulating on how to incorporate a frontline system into Factional Warfare. Some suggest NPC directed goals or randomly selected areas the size of a constellation and/or a set of systems which alternate on a week to week basis. The lure to encourage participation either a medal earned by contributions and up to even just simply enticing plexing activity within these hot zones by a double reward to objective payouts during such events. Ideas to substantially increase hub destruction payouts by default and also have those double as an incentive to not only plex these seasonal zones but to also aim at flipping them completely. There was general disagreement on a hubs total payout still being relatively low when split by 20+ pilots and that it should be a flat amount given per participant.

You can find the discussions taking place in this Factional Warfare Committee Discord in the following link here. Please join us. https://discord.gg/zJdSnQF

I’m here to introduce and explain, as briefly as I can, the system which I have recommended for FW that will introduce a frontline type of system by design, even though it is not exactly spelled out in its intention. It is based on underlying motivations and not entirely or even partially rewarded differently at face value in its scheme. Bare with me as I explain the reasons why normalized rewards, even in a frontline system, is still beneficial to the different skill levels, styles, and sizes of groups found at all times in Factional Warfare. Whether they are focused to activity in high traffic areas, or remote corners of less frequented space. I’m all for established and practiced pvp groups focusing on particular areas and concentrating their presence there, but the back waters and remote constellations were the best zones to train new players and where in I would also recommend guys develop their see legs with some good LP before they are faced by constant and swift interruptions by highly skilled players that thrive in the most dangerous zones. So, to the players who wish to reduce the size of the warzone, please take these things also into consideration.

Many of you know I have tried to encourage an adjacency system based on system bonuses that are focused on contiguous affects which increase in degree by the number of systems adjoining. It keeps FW unique and apart from null sov warfare. It removes the current requirement of any kind of donation to sustain it, but melds perfectly with the current model of system capture. That is my vision, but I don’t know where others stand in this regard. Therefore, the outline of the system is below, and I will follow this with some statements on how I believe this will work to motivate activity towards a frontline type system, while keeping allowances to smaller groups or even solo activity outside what will be viewed as the “frontline” areas. The concept has evolved over time, so please be patient while I expand first on the aggressive aspect and then the defensive portion after that.

*Influence of contiguous hostile systems to plexes captured in affected adjacent system: +50% added value for each hostile adjacent system, or basically half the value of each plex added. Value stacks by number of hostile systems. (Current rate per hour possible 3.5% notwithstanding random constellation objective spawns. Or 5 objectives an hour. Offensive aspect mutator theoretical rate per hour: 1 system= 5.25%; 2 systems= 7.0%; 3 systems= 8.75%; 4 systems= 10.5%; 5 systems= 12.25%; 6 systems= 14.0%; 7 systems= 15.75% )

*Influence of contiguous friendly systems to manifest passive relief to contested rate: Adjacent friendly occupied systems lower the system percentage 0.2% every hour to each adjacent friendly occupied system. Values also stack. (List of 0.2% regen a day by number of applicable bonuses. 1 system= 4.8%; 2 systems=9.6%; 3 systems= 14.4%; 4 systems 19.2%; 5 systems=24%; 6 systems=28.8%; 7 systems=33.6%)

Offensive Aspect of Adjacency System

For each bordering hostile system, half the value of each plex is added to the capture contested value of each objective. So +50% for each hostile adjacent system is, with the current values, and if a system were bordered by 3 enemy systems, a novice upon capture would be worth an added 1.7%. All plexes, regardless of size, are currently worth .7%. So the breakdown is 7%+ n (3.5%). So this single plex would be worth two and half novices. Easily halving the time to capture a system if the present condition is maintained under a constant siege. That of course would change if in the future novices were valued less than those of larger objectives.

Let’s have a real Eve example. In the Amarr/Minmatar warzone, let’s take the system of Aset and suppose it is surrounded by hostile systems all contiguous to it. Aset is surrounded by 7 potentially impactful systems, all being factional warfare systems, while Avenod, a neighbor system to Aset, has only 3 connections, two being lowsec and one being highsec Gallente Empire space, connecting Metropolis to Sinq Laison. There aren’t too many systems on the map like Aset. 2 and 3 connections are normal, with places with 6 being rare if we don’t count highsec. To list a few examples of six would be Asakai, Ostingele, Heydieles, Frerstorn, Dal, Siseide, Amamake, with the last three being in the same constellation of Hed. I would also count border highsec systems as qualifiers for this project. My reasoning being that if you live in a system that is bordered by a highsec of the enemy faction, you would have to deal with one constant penalty to each oplex being worth more when they’re taken. So in this we create a frontline system automatically with a strong bounce back ability or boost for factions that got beat back into their highsec, as every bordering system would fall faster by default. In the case of Avenod, Audaerne should count as a friendly ally system towards the Republic.

Now, I cannot sufficiently stress people to not forget the importance that the worth of each plex plays in the capture of a system. Forgive my short tangent on this issue. If we scale value of each complex by size to deter the impact small and novice complexes have on a whole it could be so: Novice .3%; Small .6%; Medium .9%; Large 1.2%. Making a Large worth up to four novices. For the sake of sanity, I would love to see the total capture time of every plex reduced by 25% as a buff to plexing if missions were successfully removed and have the Dual-Timers system put in place. Dual timers is essentially one meter for offensive ticks and a separate meter for defensive ticks, with no rollbacks. Discussion on rollbacks has been ongoing. Join the fun.

Defensive Aspect of Adjacency System

Please let me set the stage for defensive mechanics in FW. I would like to communicate my view on Venture use in the warzone. I believe the problem is with the activity itself, and not with the ship, specifically. If you ban those, empty or weaponless hulls will still be viable. It’s not a solution. There will still be a problem with afk dplexing. We know that forcing players to bring dps has proven offensive plexing is working as intended. If we were to simply force the npc to be cleared, regardless of side, you force players to fit weapons, and even forego stabs for damage mods in the lows. I believe this solves the Venture afk problem or even stabs for that matter. We have already determined that this npc doesn’t give standings hits, so there’s no loss except for ammo and the requirement of bringing an appropriate level of dps. I for one welcome the new patch on Venture’s unable to capture plexes and forbidding fitted stabs from entering an objective, though I lament greatly the loss of the gate slide as a result of this gate check. Anyhow, the debate on alternative ways of farming FW are numerous and all can be found expressed in the Discord. One problem does remain after any “solutions” to the afk dplexing issue, and the fact remains that this activity is more atrocious than mining and requires even less attention. Practically zero. It is terrible in every way but also necessary if you are a FW group that resides inside lowsec and have no intention of ever letting your home be lost, even if, after Citadels, it is only pride alone that is keeping you attached to a stubborn defense. We come to understand that there needs to be a form of passive relief for this side of system control that is reasonable, while at the same time can also be shut down or nullified. In the shape of an Adjacency system, this can become a reality and it can exist in degrees or not at all. Let’s start with the first example: Take a system, say Fliet, and say it was to be surrounded by 2 friendly controlled FW systems, Deven and Heyd, while including the highsec border system Actee, a 0.6% passive drop would be in effect every hour, which would amount to a 14.4% passive drop daily. The 0.2% defensive passive drop from Actee would forever be present even if both Deven and Heyd were lost to the State. Plexes would be worth 200%, by both enemy controlled systems adding 50% on top of the default value of each plex, and the passive contested drop would result in a 4.8% daily drop from Actee, which would equal barely more than three objectives being taken in that 24 hour period. Those three objectives amounting to 4.2%.

You can contest any system, but have to fight against the stacked passive drop bonus from any unconquered contiguous system. A dead end system would only have a single possible small defensive passive drop, or fall slightly faster with a single drawback if the sole connection were hit first to count as a negative influence in increasing the contested percentage increase of each conquered plex. So the impact is less in dead end systems, but can become massive with systems that have various connections. They can either become a fortress if you maintain every connection on your side, or make for a prolonged war with each adjacent system hit like nodes, one by one or in concert, to completely crush the target system with a multiplied value added to each objective won. A system surrounded by 5 enemy systems could potentially fall in less than a half a day of fighting. Possibly hours, as each plex would be worth 2.45% x4 plexes = 9.8% with each full set of Novice, Small, Medium and Large. Respawn time would make that about half as much added. So maybe 14.7% every hour, if current values of novices remain equal to large plex. But a system surrounded by 5 friendly faction systems would enjoy a full 1.0% passive drop every hour (0.2% for every contiguous friendly system). So you’d be fighting against defenders AND a daily 24% passive drop. Like… pretty difficult with today’s hourly plex gains if TZ gets in your way.

Closing points

Encourages system capture of surrounding systems of a target system; Encourage defense of surrounding contiguous systems. Creates a frontline system that could be improved upon in the future without harming solo content or small gang in backwaters. Adds a passive modifier to home systems that are actively defended and maintains dplexing as an additional activity to actively further reduce contested values. Solves the problem of dplexing being a requirement for maintaining your system stable and freeing you to do actually fun things.

You can add decreased LP rewards for systems surrounded only by friendly systems, to minimize alt cross farming, or increase LP rewards in seasonal zones to push activity to new areas. Whatever. The idea has potential for growth and experimentation. So. You can see how something like this brings back some level of geographic relevance to the map, which we have completely lost with citadels. The only thing left would be the incentives for owning the system. In my opinion, you can do this with fuel costs on structures alone, with forced alignment flags bound to structures when they anchor, and of course, applying docking restrictions to any citadel that is flagged to allow docking to the side not in control of that system.

That’s it. Thanks for listening to my spill on this idea. (edit for math and increased 0.1% to 0.2%)


Can you shorten that huge wall of text to something more palatable? Maybe a TL;DR section with bullet points?

Not trolling. I just don’t have the time. I’m guessing others don’t want to read through all that, either.

1 Like

I’m currently working on laying out the math of how each variable would look like in a chart that would compare 1 connection effect to those in the extreme of 7 connections and throw those two together after the description of both near the top. I already have the numbers for the defensive portion of it.

1 Like

As a member of Caldari State Milita I think these changes would do wonders for the warzone and finding content.

Have you thought about when a milita completely takes over the warzone and how the defending milita can fight back efficiently?
I imagine they would get bored eventually and this would allow the defenders to push back?

1 Like

LeRook, yeah, I mentioned that I would like bordering empire space to also factor in as adjacent systems, depending on the faction it is governed by. So you automatically have an extra push from every highsec connection on your own side.

Right now, only taxes on hub donations getting stacked WITH an offensive against upgraded hubs will help things swing back.

I was thinking for example Onnamon to Kinakka one highsec border. Would that be enough to give the state the edge to retake?

To be honest, everything I read sounds soo much better than what we have I would take it as is and make changes as needed.

It would either make Kinakka slightly harder to take as a Caldari defender, or increase the impact of each plex if you’re trying to push back in from there. The numbers are up there on how much each system affects capture.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.