|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:Halador Osiris wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:One of the really nice things about these changes is it would mean the ship doing the OB would have to be uncloaked and close to the district beacon. Compared to now where they sit cloaked, wait for it, then do it. I didn't know that. Looks like it's time to renew my EVE subscription and fit some hybrid weapons on my Manticore. The more weapons the more damage. Go destroyer.
The cloaking delay affects the connection to the planet and gives ample time to any hostile ships waiting for them to lock them and destroy them before they fire as the district will show someont sitting there even if cloaked and we all know where they will be when they decloak if they want to fire. This is a non-issue for the EVE players and irrelevant in terms of providing an actual OB to the DUST players. |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Prangstar RND wrote:This is purely for PC:
Orbitals should get a contracts system. A Dust corp should be able to make a contract for clearance of an orbital. As I see it now there are two options: 1. contract the orbital strikes to any EVE player so anyone in EVE can pick up the contract and deliver the orbital. 2. contract the orbital strikes to an individual EVE player so only that person and his fleet can drop the orbital.
In the contract the following information should be present: Information about which corp issued the contract, information about who the corp that issued the contract is fighting, information about the system, planet and district the fight will take place on, the amount of ISK the EVE pilot will get for each successful strike/ kill. The time and date of the battle.
We disagree, and think it adds an unnecessary mechanic to a system which should reward team play within an alliance. Additionally this just screams intelligence leaks which no group in their right mind would want to give away. Also no alliance should have to be paid to support their own team. If a corp wants to play with a fleet (and DUST wants to retain members better) the there is far better proof out there which shows groups which join a good alliance which is dedicated to supporting each other have higher retention rates and login rates in game.
Quote:I highly disagree on removing the warbarge strikes as this will give players with EVE connection too big of a benefit, keep both and let the Dust player choose.
We Agree with this statement currently. We do feel however the precision strike from the warbarge should have a delay to bring it more in line with the ship based OB support from EVE to help drive more support to cross platform support.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
When our DUST514 ground team posted this discussion in our forums I had to log in to see if this was a joke or not and give some EVE perspective on some of these suggestions as well as push back on some of these good idea fairy sugge from the DUST side. We are a very well integrated EVE-DUST514 alliance at this point using the full mechanics in EVE and DUST514 in both PC and FW and while we are not perfect I do feel there are some suggestions here which actually are taking away from some of the flexibility of tactics available both in space and on the ground and do not really add to the fight. Quotes abridged to save room.
CCP FoxFour wrote:DISCLAIMER: One of the other things we would like to do is make it so that NPC provided orbital strikes, the precision strike from the war barge, is only available in what is currently known as instant battles. That would mean that in in Factional Warfare and Planetary Conquest battles the only orbital support would be from EVE players. This is a pretty straight forward change but there is more we want to do.
I would rather players retained calling in the strikes and with a caveat: Put the NPC orbital strike on a delay like the EVE ship provided orbital strikes are. I would even suggest based on previous posts that the warbarge be the NPC ship shown on grid instead of any other NPC ship. If it is destroyed then the opposing side gets no more precision strikes. In FW it can be the Faction which owns the system. For PC battles remove it completely.
It is probably just as good to release an artillery vehicle (HAV and LAV variants - woot!), in game providing small precision strikes with a slow firing rate of every 60-90 seconds which must be operated by a Dust Merc on the ground. It gives tactical options for an indirect fire option or a siege based direct fire option which is also destroyable. Defensive turrets could work in a similar fashion as well.
Another option for PC only is make a T2 ship based on the Orca which capsuleers can run with 8 high slots for turrets, decent drone bay, and a good tank which can provide Warbarge based strikes as well. Give it a jump drive so its not a total sitting duck getting to the System in the first place, and some specific fleet-ground support options like reducing the firing cycle for OB support.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:DISCLAIMER: We would like to also make it so that EVE orbitals are NOT earned via war points. Orbitals in instant battles would still be earned via WP... unless we come up with something else but at this time we are currently not thinking of touching it. For EVE orbitals though we are looking at making it so that the EVE pilot earns the orbital strike by capturing a beacon above the district. This would work very much the same way Factional Warfare complex beacons work. Also very similar to how it worked for the Fanfest tournament.
We like removing War Points requirements for EVE Orbitals and disagree with pilots "earning" their OB with time on beacon and are alarmed by the idea of an timer. EVE pilots earn the Orbital strike by making it to the system in the first place, going to the district (which lights up for hostiles in system to see and instantly warp to), and then connecting to the planet and then firing on request from the ground team below. Pilots are NOT capturing the beacon as both sides should be firing at the same time if there is a pitched fleet battle above the planet. There are already plenty of risks built into the EVE orbital bombardment mechanic as it is and this puts an currently unneeded mechanic on there.
If you have ships "earn" the OB it should be also allow every ship connected fire an OB immediately and then follow up in a relatively short cycle (like every 60 seconds.) Currently Capsuleers connect and sit and wait when they would normally provide plenty of steel rain to their counterparts on the ground on request. Sound unfair to those without a fleet? Yes it does, and if you really want to integrate DUST514 and EVE better that is a great way to make sure everyone is talking in EVE and DUST and working together.
We actually like seeing some smaller fleets get out there and attempt hit and run maneuvers on the district as it adds a great tactical option for an out numbered fleet and should be available to the ships in space. When a group first starts out building their fleet they should even as a smaller force have some options available to them. Cloaking destroyers still have to de-cloak and have a cloaking delay to connect to the district and we all know where they will be when that happens. It's possible to kill them or force them off the district before they connect and fire most times unless they are extra sharp. We have chased ships off or killed them in the past and it's a tactical option which should remain. Opposing pilots can just as easily put cloaking ships there to ambush them. In the end it also makes intelligence meta game more fun too.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 19:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:DISCLAIMER: This idea however introduces a problem. Currently because it is squads that earn orbital strikes the squad leader gets to call it in. That is very well defined. If the EVE player earns the orbital strike who gets to call the strike in? There are several options to this.We are currently favouring the idea of giving it to the squad with the most war points, but as said above nothing is final at this point.
Bad idea. No modern military in the world would agree with this tactical option as it ruins flexibility on the battlefield for the ground commander. Any organized group would also have a problem with this and it will only get worse once larger groups are allowed to play. Any squad leader (and above when those leader positions actually get a mechanic) should be able to call in the OB based on when the Orbital becomes available. Organized groups already have this covered well tactically in game, and more skilled groups have a decentralized command and control of this. If the "highest WP" group mechanic goes live it will create a mechanic which does not reward team work beyond the squad level, or allow the ground leaders the tactical flexibility for providing mutual support to a squad under duress or press an attack.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 20:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Prangstar RND wrote:Jack Vanus wrote:Prangstar RND wrote:This is purely for PC:
Orbitals should get a contracts system. A Dust corp should be able to make a contract for clearance of an orbital. As I see it now there are two options: 1. contract the orbital strikes to any EVE player so anyone in EVE can pick up the contract and deliver the orbital. 2. contract the orbital strikes to an individual EVE player so only that person and his fleet can drop the orbital.
In the contract the following information should be present: Information about which corp issued the contract, information about who the corp that issued the contract is fighting, information about the system, planet and district the fight will take place on, the amount of ISK the EVE pilot will get for each successful strike/ kill. The time and date of the battle. We disagree, and think it adds an unnecessary mechanic to a system which should reward team play within an alliance. Additionally this just screams intelligence leaks which no group in their right mind would want to give away. Also no alliance should have to be paid to support their own team. If a corp wants to play with a fleet (and DUST wants to retain members better) the there is far better proof out there which shows groups which join a good alliance which is dedicated to supporting each other have higher retention rates and login rates in game. lol, who is this we you are referring too. I have an EVE character which is not in my Dust corp or alliance, I would still want to deliver orbital strike for my dust corp in PC though. Having strikes limited to alliance members limits the number of EVE players who could be doing strikes. Getting a contract system in will free it up for all EVE players.
The we I am referring to is my alliance which I represent. not just me. Our response has come after some discussion of what some of the ideas presented in this thread represent to the mechanics. Just because you may only represent yourself does not mean I do.
We do not disagree with the idea that lots of other pilots should be able to provide OB. We disagree with the mechanic proposed.
The early days of OB showed its already possible to allow multiple players provide OB regardless of alignment or allegiance... which provided a great deal of awesome opportunities.
Why do we need a contract? A contract creates a security leak which is easily exploited unrealistically and would mean small fleet like your alliance has would be easy pickings for the small gang fleets out there chasing your pilots off or ambushing them en route, even if you got help from the bigger fleets, everyone is going to know where the fight is at a level most fleet leaders would not appreciate having out there. Additionally does only the pilot who accepted the contract get to fire or his whole fleet? what happens if the fleet is made up of members in different corps or alliances? Sounds like a code writing nightmare to me.
Why not just let any pilot provide an OB? with priority set much the same as it is for joining a fleet in EVE by the ground team leader (read as make a platoon leader and company commander position please) which allows them to decide who can provide the OB through a filter by corp, alliance, and then open to all as well as by standings when they implement that as well. The mechanic works well, and should already have a basis to go on which works.
The mechanic we proposed gets what you wanted as an end state, but your ground team gets more control as well with less leaks unreasonably placed out there as part of a game mechanic or potential for extreme lag from awkward code creating the mechanics. |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 01:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Dante Kretschmer wrote:This are great ideas indeed.
The fact that we can always call a warbarge OB makes the OB itself less awesome because of repetition. Giving total control of that feature to EvE pilots is definetly a step forward in improving the EvE/Dust link.
FW OB are the most troublesome. I favor the idea that the best should be the ones calling the strikes. However, in order to make every eligible squad leader have a chance, you could generate a random number between 0 and 1, and assing each SL an interval (chance) based on total WP, so the ones with more WP have a greater chance to earn the strike. Say the best squad leader will have the interval [0, 1/2], the second (1/2,1/2+1/3] and the third and subsequent squads will have equal chances in the interval (1/2+1/3, 1].
These are just figures, i'd probably give the best squad leader more than 1/2.
For PC battles let us handle ourselves.
This is a simple idea, easy to implement, and some tweaking required at the numbers, but much more than making a contract system for orbitals
Why not just let the squad commanders get the OBs as they are now and whomever calls it in first gets it to encourage full squads to form in support of FW? Right now, we rarely see a full cohesive squad from the same alliance much less corp form on the opposing lines.
The problem with FW battles at this point is there isnt enough reward to encourage corps to really get involved and build up full squads consistently. Our FW ground teams rarely have issues getting OB support from FW pilots as we work specifically with our FW allies to coordinate with them and make it happen.
If your corp is struggling to get OB support in FW join VTS Pub channel and ask for a diplo and we will help you find FW corps to coordinate with even if they are on the opposing side.
In the mean time working some mathematical formula for something which is already suffering from a lack of manpower isnt the answer and if anything will further discourage cohesive team play. Make FW rewards for fighting in the battles more interesting and you will see more full squads and fight the wars. |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 03:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:Jack Vanus wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:DISCLAIMER: We would like to also... We like removing War Points... We actually like seeing... Who the hell is this guy speaking for exactly?
See alliance tag. I speak for them... (and a few more too)
Cheers |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 03:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:Continuous fire orbital - Available from the beginning of the match as long as there is an eve-pilot with orbital capable equipment.
The squad leader places an orbital order on the map, and the eve pilot locks onto the order, and then continuously fires his weapon at that location. Dust side it would be a continuous orbital-foom foom foom foom foom foom foom foom foom foom fom foom foom foom-in one location. In PC or faction warfare the damage from this strike is FF enabled. This could be used to bombard the enemy MCC continuously, this could be used to lock down an objective. or path of travel.
The enemies could hire a single mercenary or pirate to go chase away the eve pilot and end the strike.
This is a good idea... not sure how it would work with multiple destroyers on grid. We sometimes have 3 or more destroyers ready to go in fleet to give ammo options to the ground commander, and back up in case a destroyer is lost. It could be too powerful if a big fleet shows up... but that would make us happy as well. |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 03:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
G Torq wrote:The following are just thoughts and ponderings, and may reflect to or conflict with previous posts.Orbitals in Insta-battles (NPC provided)Orbital provided to the team for every 400WP average earned across combatants on a team.
- Orbital available on a first-come basis to all qualified Squad Leaders
- Squads must consist of at least two (2) mercs to qualify
- Last Squad to direct an Orbital do not qualify (spread the load/love)
- All mercs deployed, in squads or solo, counts toward the 400WP average
- The Squad Lead is given an Assist for each killed enemy, as are any hitting or scanning/"painting" the enemies just prior to them dying from the bombardment
The 400WP is slightly less than the current 416,6 average required for a squad of 6, and since it is across the whole team, it should allow for occassionally earlier and slightly more frequent orbitals, but not incur a significant difference in the quantity of orbitals. As it is counted across the team and available to multiple Squad Leaders, it would show less favour to the squads doing the proverbial "Pubstomp", but instead leverage the Orbital Bombardment mechanics as something available to everyboty. In turn, it also means that less experienced Squad Leaders may "miss-use" a bombardment in a rush to deploy it. Orbitals in Factional Warfare and Planetary Conquest battles (player provided)Orbital provided to the team, when an EvE pilot is connected to the district beacon.
- EvE pilot to connect to district and select 1 or more Squad Leads to communicate the availability to
- Squad Leads are informed of the availability, including type and size of bombartment munitions
- 1 or more selected Squad Lead places request with location and type of bombardment
- EvE pilot to choose which request to follow and deploys weaponry
- Bombardment causes EvE pilot to loose connection to the district, and triggers a 45 seconds cool-down before reconnect
- Kills are given to the EvE pilot, while the Squad Lead gets assists, as are any merc hitting the enemy combatants just prior to them dying, or to any merc having actively scanned/"painted" them
Non-directed bombardmentWhen an EvE pilot is connected she can elect to perform a "blindfire" in the general direction of an objective. A blindfire bombardment is hostile to all merc in-theather, also in Factional Warfare, meaning this is a dangerous tactic, but a valid last-resort if no coordination can be arranged with the ground-forces for any reason. Location will be semi-random around either an installation/objective, MCC or a friendly Squad Lead.
This is in line with what I was previously discussing. We dont feel the pilot should have to select a squad leader, as all squad leaders should be able to request fire and then the appropriate pilot can choose to fire or not based on the squad leaders request by ammo type. More than one destroyer on grid gives more than one possible ammo type available usually. If any squad leader should be able to call in three OB in succession if the mechanic determines how many OB can be called because the tactical situation dictates it good on them and better for larger scale team work.
I disagree with the disconnect idea because its an unneeded mechanic preventing the pilot from firing for more than one squad in succession if he is the only one there but multiple squads can call in OB.
We feel limiting firing rate is unreasonable and if anything would unfairly benefit a larger fleet which shows up. If a small fleet or even one brave pilot wants to come out and fight we feel they should be able to have the option to get as many shots off as possible in a hit and run maneuver.
I think highly of the ideas you mentioned with kill assists for the mercs marking the targets and for the EVE pilots to get some recognition as well.
I am not a big fan of the wild bombardment ideas until the battlefields get a lot larger or there is a reasonable tactical situation where that would be the better choice. |
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 03:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
God Anpu TheImmortal wrote:I don't like the idea of eve even having power over a battle in a game that is totally separate other than story line. These are 2 different types of games and should be respected as such without penalty. It's like with the alliance setup for corps if we wanted on dust a fps to get one set up we have to hopefully find someone in eve mind u and have it setup and pass our ceo title over to some one we don't know. I like the ideas for some intergration but you guys are making dust like eve's little play toys. If orbitals were to be called it should be by the ground force that has earned it so we on the dust side stay in controll of our game. Not downing eve but if we wanted to play eve we would.
I do agree on not letting EVE overrun the DUST514 game, and based on how well so many of the DUST only corps are doing in PC I think the mechanics of the EVE provided OB is far from overwhelming the ground battles.
Its not a separate game. Its the same game in the same New Eden universe...You arent playing DUST514 anymore than someone else is playing EVE Online... Everyone is playing in New Eden. It is just played on two different platforms. Don't bother trying in keeping them separate, because its a big sandbox and its only going to get bigger.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 22:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:Another thought on orbitals - There could be an orbital control point. An orbital would become available every 10 minutes or so, and whichever team is in control of the point at that time, is the team that can signal an EVE pilot to make the strike.
Every 10 minutes? Most matches go for 10-15 minutes, 20 minutes if its drawn out and many of our teams average 4-5 OB in a typical match. (On rare occassions we sometimes do more.)
I think 10 minutes is on the long side.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 22:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:SolusNothos wrote:I'm late to this party and haven't read any of the other replies yet.
1: Yep remove warbarge strikes form FW/PC, or cut the WP needed for Orbitals. Either is fine by me.
So onto some thoughts and ideas for Orbitals and Eve-Dust Link in general.
1: Make orbitals more substantial. Currently it doesn't FEEL any better than a Warbarge strike. Hard to convince people to use the Orbital if they don't see the point. 2: Damage patterns. Allow the Capsuleer to set how the orbital strike lands, such as a line, a spread or all in one small cluster. 3: Intel map when connected. Give the Capsuleer a window that has a map with icons on it representing where all the Dust stuff is located. Only has to update with server tick's. GIves the capsuleer something to do while waiting. 4: Orbital repositioning. Nothing sucks more than an orbital that misses everything. Allow the capsuleer to adjust, up to a point, the precise strike location. 5: Allow the Capsuleer to deploy corp assets such as Tanks himself. Offload some of the strategic logistics. All assets dropped this way have to be donated to the Corp from Dust beforehand. 6: Indirect strikes. Split the map up into grids and allow the Capsuleer to bombard a section randomly. NO precision with these, they just drop haphazardly. Could force a certain minimum time bombarding a section, like say 45 seconds. A way to earn WP for a capsuleer. I'm going to add to this joining the Team channel. One of the biggest issues with trying to offer support is having to put everyone in a custom channel just so the EVE player can talk to them. You can set up connecting to the district itself as a trigger that links you to your allies' Team channel.
Have the EVE player make the channel... its a lot easier for him. |
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 22:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
On Another note for capturing beacons and why its a bad idea vs letting all players connected fire:
Its about the time it takes to even do this and that there is no spatial travel component for the DUST players.
The key difference between DUST514 and EVE is that DUST514 is only done in short bursts of 10-20 minutes for FW and PC battles. EVE has no time limit... its always on and the risk never stops which creates other factors which impact the mechanics. Time gets burned up in EVE performing actions like traveling to the system once the ground side lets you know where its going down (3-5 minutes if the pilots is close, far longer if not), then warping to district, connecting, swapping ammo, then firing when requested, for the last 5-10 minutes if its even that long, then going to the next system requested because the DUST players are magically whisked away to a new system in less than a minute while the pilots have to travel through hostile space... it all takes time... a lot of time and that is the best case scenario.
Add more time if a hostile group shows up to just kill the friendly ship (mostly pirates not even in FW who saw the ship on the overview light up like a bright beacon when it landed on district). Assuming it might actually be a hostile group who is supporting the enemy on the ground. Now people are fighting. Which would be AWESOME, except if they were providing OB support but only one can connect at a time... well that is another 2-5 minutes (depending on pilots skill, ship fits, and more) where pilots are sparring and neither side can fire anyway.
The best fleet fights we have had over planets have been OB battles where both sides are attempting to provide OB support while at the same time the fleet is fighting each other as well. If the Capture/King of the Hill mechanic is introduced... it will not cause big fights... because big fleets wont bother for a 2-5 minute window for OB engagement. DUST514 is not persistent enough to support this idea and even if it was... capture isn't the answer because those fights would happen anyway without the mechanic.
Pilots or Fleets attempting to fight over a planetary district will not try to push the other fleet off who got there first if they couldn't kill it all in less than a minute because it would not give them enough time to actually drop an OB and support their buddies. For the same reason Pilots and Fleets already in position wont stay there unless they can kill the new aggressors in less than a minute because they wont bother to stick around if they cannot drop OB to support their buddies on the ground because of the limited time window to drop an OB.
The answer is to allow both sides to connect and fire as it is now. with all EVE Pilots on a firing cycle timer.
I would also add that there should be a mechanic to further allow player involvement/skills to cut the speed of that firing cycle both in space and on the ground in some way, this will create a variable speed to the firing cycle, damage, or area of effect to some of the OB support provided from space and make a new dedicated ground OB Forward Observer role on DUST and a OB FC role in EVE as well.
|
Jack Vanus
Brimstone Tactical Covert Intervention
25
|
Posted - 2013.11.25 03:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Jack Vanus wrote:Mobius Wyvern wrote:
You can set up connecting to the district itself as a trigger that links you to your allies' Team channel.
Have the EVE player make the channel... its a lot easier for him. You're missing my point, though. The whole idea is that you connect into the same channel that all the Dust players get put into automatically when they drop into a match. You want to make the coordination between both games as simple as possible.
No, I get what you are writing... the problem is in the operational coordination... getting into comms by connecting is already too late. If you are getting pilots that way anyway make two or three dedicated channels to have your groups use them. its not hard. What you are postulating actually limits your ability to coordinate ops.
What I will state more clearly is if the pilot is not already in comms with a team long before the point at which the ground team are going to start a match on the ground that ground team is unlikely to get many OB. It just doesnt work well.
We coordinate plenty of OB and not just for our own teams but with others as well. The team channel connection at the point of connecting to the channel is sub optimal... and probably actually a drawback for a number of reasons I wont get into on here. I will let you figure them out on your own. |
|
|
|