The concept I want to present is two-fold:

A. Providing a role for "jet" aircraft, such as the Fighters that were shown in 2009 and have been mentioned a few times since.

B. Providing the feeling of a large-scale conflict while managing player counts and network load.


First of all, the concept that Grit Breather and I hashed out several months ago involved allowing "Jet" aircraft the ability to operate outside of the VTOL aircraft redzone, and possibly even the ability to fly across the entire District visible from space, giving them plenty of room to maneuver and the ability for them to have a role of their own apart from "Gunship" type aircraft that would operate like attack helicopters in other combined-arms shooters.


This coincides with the second part of our concept, which involved having several battle zones within a single district. To clarify, MAG supported 256 players by hosting a single environment across multiple separate instances. You had that large number of players, but they were physically unable to congregate in one area, as that would have cause catastrophic latency issues.

What we propose is that capturing a FW district consist of multiple 48-player (or higher as the game develops over the years) battles in "battle-zones" within the district. Rather than jumping back up to the War Barge after each fight as in the current mechanics, your team-mates would fall back to the MCC, and then it would fly you to the next battle under the control of the Commander. The Commanders would also be able to access a top-down view of the entire district to see how the fight is progressing in each area so that they can coordinate their efforts when taking contracts for the same Faction.

In addition, you would also have Jet aircraft deploy-able from the MCC just like the RDVs, and they would share the MCCs ability to traverse the entire district. In this way, you have what is effectively a separate experience for the players who use these vehicles, but that separate playstyle also allows them to be more useful by allowing the coordination of air support among all the active battle-zones. In this way, if you restrict them to only be able to land and re-arm on the MCC they launched from so as to keep them in their own "sky box" instance at all other times, you can keep the infantry battles in the game on a manage-able scale of network load, while still providing the feeling of being in a large-scale conflict.

So what I'd like to see in district fights -

Make it LIKE skirmish 1.0 ie a set of objectives unlocks the next chunk of the map.

Instead of reloading into the MCC there is a redline change at the end of each map.

So there is a 2min low conflict time period for people to reset their location and get their fits setup etc.

Most of this time is spent running/driving to the new positions on each edge of the map.

Defense has time to "Setup" in the redzone before the new map is active.

I like the sound of that. Gives a far more structured alternative to my idea.

Actually, in addition, why not additionally represent that timer via the MCC flying in overhead to signal the start of the next battle?

Well thats where the problem lies?

Currently we destroy the MCC on every map.

I'm assuming that it would instead retreat as it was in skirmish 1.0

Right, I was making that statement based on what you had suggested. It would honestly make more sense to be able to retreat when you're getting badly beaten up. Possibly if you lose the MCC, have the wait period involve another one being sent down from orbit?

Sure, this gets into issues of cost to take/defend a district in nullsec at least. Not sure how that balances out.

IIRC 130m isk per MCC

Just put this in IRC, but thought I'd put it here too. This combined with a mechanic like current sovereignty mechanics in Eve.

To capture a district you must:

1: fight an ambush to reinforce the defense relay down to 50% armor. While active it prevents hostile MCCs from entering the atmosphere above the district. Reinforced nodes then go into a timer of the defender's choosing so the next battle is up to them.

2: when the reinforcement ends, an OMS ambush then takes place around the node until it is hacked, destroyed, or armor is healed to 100%.

3: If the OMS defense battle fails and the node falls all available battles ones in the districts become vulnerable to skirmish attacks subject to the attacker's choosing.

4: Districts maintain command nodes which are MCC sized installations that represent a defender's MCC. Attacking null cannons degrade the defender's command node rather than having an MCC. Attackers win if the majority of zones in a district are taken. Ties go to the defender.

5: After 30 mins of the defense relay being destroyed, or a successful skirmish defense, the defender can launch another OMS Ambush to rebuild another defense relay. If successful the defenders can then recharge their district's relay preventing any more MCCs from entering their atmosphere. To continue the attack, the attacker returns to step 1.

I both like, and dislike, this proposal. I like it because it outlines a very clear list of objectives that must be obtained in order to gain control of a district/planet, or defend against an incoming attack depending on which side you are on. But that's also why I don't like it. It's too orderly, too polite. It seems to suggest that Corps would set aside a time to battle over districts/planets.

Corp A: We'd like to launch a surpise attack against you. How does Tuesday at 7 sound?

Corp B: Well it's difficult to get enough players at 7, how about 8:30?

Corp A 8:30 it is! Look forward to destroying then.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But it would seem to fit better in the New Eden 'verse if Corp B didn't know that their planets were being attacked until an emergency signal (say in the form of a notification to the CEO) was sent out AFTER Corp A had started their initial attack. This offers up the possibility of covert operations/black ops missions, as well as PVE turned PVP battles.

PVE because the areas under attack might start out only being defended by NPC personnel or Drones, and PVP because as soon as the message went out, Corp B Mercs could start spawning in to defend the area.

Like I said, I do like the proposal, but I feel that Game Modes should only be used as a stop gap. Game TOOLS are a better way to go, in the long run. Give us, as players, enough tools and the space to use them in, and WE will create the ways to achieve our goals.

I both like, and dislike, this proposal. I like it because it outlines a very clear list of objectives that must be obtained in order to gain control of a district/planet, or defend against an incoming attack depending on which side you are on. But that's also why I don't like it. It's too orderly, too polite. It seems to suggest that Corps would set aside a time to battle over districts/planets.

Corp A: We'd like to launch a surpise attack against you. How does Tuesday at 7 sound?

Corp B: Well it's difficult to get enough players at 7, how about 8:30?

Corp A 8:30 it is! Look forward to destroying then.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. But it would seem to fit better in the New Eden 'verse if Corp B didn't know that their planets were being attacked until an emergency signal (say in the form of a notification to the CEO) was sent out AFTER Corp A had started their initial attack. This offers up the possibility of covert operations/black ops missions, as well as PVE turned PVP battles.

PVE because the areas under attack might start out only being defended by NPC personnel or Drones, and PVP because as soon as the message went out, Corp B Mercs could start spawning in to defend the area.

Like I said, I do like the proposal, but I feel that Game Modes should only be used as a stop gap. Game TOOLS are a better way to go, in the long run. Give us, as players, enough tools and the space to use them in, and WE will create the ways to achieve our goals.

You'll find that most of us agree on this standpoint of FW Battles being more like gentlemanly duels than an actual war. I like the idea of one of these matches being underway, and then the other side recieves a warning, just like you said. However, having a slight delay before you can actually start fighting after you put boots on the ground is a lot like a small-scale version of the reinforcement timers on structures in EVE. It gives the enemy enough time with that District in their Corp Battle tab to start scrambling to put a defense together, so that you have a better chance of getting a good fight, while still allowing the element of surprise to somewhat be a factor.

Some people might not want a good fight, they might just want to take territory as easily as possible. But I do see your point. I just get a liitle confused when people start asking for things that would seem to make Dust like MAG or Battlefield (arguably the only two console shooters even remotely like Dust to begin with), when this game offers so much more in potential.

Not to make it seem like I'm hijacking your thread, I'll take your OP as an example. A positive one, by the way.

Your proposal of keeping fighter craft in there own "sky box" is a good one, as it it would (hopefully) not only allow more players on the map, but also because it opens up the possibilty of making the maps less like Battlefield and more like Farcry, or the original Crysis. Having maps that size, regardless of the amount of players on the ground (as that number will steadily increase as technology allows) would allow for the feeling of a real battle.

The infamous redline could be delegated to the edge of the District as a whole, and would allow Commanders to choose their infiltration points, and defenders to choose which areas they want to defend the most.

Battles would then have a roving "frontline" as each side gained and lost territory, without having an artificial "redline" defining where you should be fighting.

It allows for flanking manuevers and setting up ambushes.

It allows for having an active battlefield strategy as well as the more fluid small unit tactics needed to win an egagement. Now I'm not saying that this should be implented right away.

Obviously there are balance issues still to be worked out to get the core mechanics working as they should. And maybe my ideas are too ambitious to actually pull off. But I like this game, I like the potential, and I will always advocate for ideas that push it farther from the standard COD, MAG, Battlefield FPS games and more into a realm unto itself.

Have you ever played Frontlines: Fuel of War? Your concept sounds like what made that game hang around long after many newer titles had come out. Like BF2142, the PC version is still pretty active today. I love that idea, as it would mean that even when you go back to the same District, you may get a completely new fight, and gives the opportunity to have a real conflict over the District instead of just having a series of battles and then it's over.

I like B more than A, and I only dislike A because I don't think it should be unique to fighters.

I think vehicles should be able to pass between combat zones, as well as the person in the commander role being able to manage squads and flag them for multiple/different zones so they can move around to reinforce areas. If one of your teams is getting crushed somewhere, send another squad from a place you're easily winning - have a dropship or LAV/future-APC come pick them up and ferry them across the district to the appropriate place and help out the losing team.

Assuming multiple battles are going on simultaneously anyway, and not a linear progression for one team to go through.

The only reason I didn't suggest that myself is that I can't think of a way to balance what you put forward with the need to handle instancing and session changes. I liked the idea of Jets and MCCs being able to move around freely as a way to keep manageable player counts for network load, while still allowing the player to feel like they're part of a large battle.

Giving fighters the ability fly over an entire District in their own "sky box" is the only way that I can think of to give them enough room to manuever. Think of Ace Combat for this idea more than anything else. I agree with Tiel Syysch, and I would also like to see that eventually, but Mobius is right. For right now we have to simulate that feel of large scale warfare until technology allows for something more.

I like where this is going so far, but I would make two alterations.

1) I would only allow unlimited clones to the defender if they had to pay for each cloned killed. The attacking Corp would already have that cost factored in and would have payed for the clones ahead of time. It goes with the Risk Versus Reward mantra of the game as it may prove to be too costly to continue to defend the District/territory.

2) I don't think that FW battles should end with the destruction of the MCC. It should severely cripple a team that loses it, but the choice to continue to fight, or to retreat, should always be in the hands of the players.

I like the idea of surprise attacks, but they have to simulate having a garrison in the district. It's not like the place will be completely abandoned between battles after all. A timer after a declaration of attack would allow the defending team "deploy" the garrison force. I imagine that there would also be some warning that a hostile war barge was entering your area.

Well, Mobius and Beren had mentioned something about a reinforcement timer. I'm vaguely familiar with that, but I don't play EVE so my knowledge base is second hand at best. But, if I understand the concept correctly, you could have a surprise attack on one section of a District that would allow the attacking Corp to gain a foot hold/base of operations on the planet/District, that would trigger an alarm. The timer starts to count down, and the defending team has 24 hours (?) to mount a defense.

After that, you would get the "roving front line" battle that Mobius suggests. The difference between this and a standard Skirish 1.0 type fight is that the attcking commander could choose where in the district he wanted to start his infiltration. It could be in the middle or on the edge, wherever he felt he had the best strategic advantage. The enemy doesn't always attack where you want him to, and often pops up when you least expect him to. Once again, this idea puts more control into the hands of the players, instead of the AI.

EDIT: As for the warnings of hostile warbarges in the area, I agree with you. I also think that it opens up some interesting ideas involving Recon Missions, and Covert/Black Ops Missions as well.

You'll find that most of us agree on this standpoint of FW Battles being more like gentlemanly duels than an actual war.

Good thing Things like this could be Emplanted in Corp Warfore, instead of FW.
FW= Caldari at war with Gallente
Corp War= Bulldog Mining and Industrial Ltd at war with Timbuktoo
Why can't our corps afford these Jets? Perhaps they should be an Ingame License that a Corp has to hold before it can purchase these jets, as for us Ground Mercs, the Caldari could Back us with Military Personnel when we Invade a Gallente Water Purification Plant?

Ahh, I was thinking you meant that FW meant, FW in EVE.