DUST Search - Location Location Location!

Dirks Macker wrote:

Fox Gaden wrote:

Location, so important in so many things, but so meaningless in Planetary Conquest. Cry

CCP promised that Planetary Conquest would be tactical like the board game Risk, but introduction of unlimited Clone Packs changed that. Now every planet is the same from a strategic point of view and there are no defined battle lines.

I implore CCP to make Location relevant again! Make Clone Packs only deployable from High Sec systems, with the same clone death rates for travel as when you move clones from a District.

This would mean border systems would still be open to new Corps trying to get into Planetary Conquest, while systems deeper into Low Sec could only be attacked by people who owned a district close by. It would give systems deep in Low Sec a greater tactical advantage. It would also create battle lines and make it interesting to look at the district ownership map.

If CCP wanted even more control over the tactical situation they could have Clone Packs only deployable from Genolution stations/facilities, which they could place in High Sec systems bordering Low Sec, and then to expand PC in the future they would simply open another Genolution station/facility on the boarder of another Low Sec Region.

The problem with your solution is there are no such barriers in EVE. A capital ship (which I'm assuming is what a battle barge is) can just cyno into any low or null sec system. Yours is a 2D fix to a 3D environment. However, they could definitely implement things like neutral spaceport districts on an actual map being the only places you can start a planetary invasion from to mitigate some of your concerns.

Personally, I think it would be cool if they went in the direction of cost over distance as the main barrier to corps and alliances hopping all over the map at will.

Every player should have a current home or district where they are currently based from. For PC battles, you should have to pay for transport for everyone involved. If you are on the same planet, it would be next to nothing, a small amount for the same system, a lot more to a different constellation, and so on.... This would have no effect on public or FW matches, but it would be interesting if there was a cooldown timer on home changes with penalty charges to transfer before the cooldiwn is up. If they ever expanded PC to other regions or introduced a null sec sov raiding feature, where your clone is located could have a big impact.

I also think the metagame would be incredible if vehicles used in PC were corp assets. Throw in similar travel costs as mentioned above and I think you could build a risk-like metagame, with the barriers being cost, not invisible space fences.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 1261	Posted - 2013.10.13 13:15:00 - [1] - Quote Location, so important in so many things, but so meaningless in Planetary Conquest. CCP promised that Planetary Conquest would be tactical like the board game Risk, but introduction of unlimited Clone Packs changed that. Now every planet is the same from a strategic point of view and there are no defined battle lines. I implore CCP to make Location relevant again! Make Clone Packs only deployable from High Sec systems, with the same clone death rates for travel as when you move clones from a District. This would mean border systems would still be open to new Corps trying to get into Planetary Conquest, while systems deeper into Low Sec could only be attacked by people who owned a district close by. It would give systems deep in Low Sec a greater tactical advantage. It would also create battle lines and make it interesting to look at the district ownership map. If CCP wanted even more control over the tactical situation they could have Clone Packs only deployable from Genolution stations/facilities, which they could place in High Sec systems bordering Low Sec, and then to expand PC in the future they would simply open another Genolution station/facility on the boarder of another Low Sec Region.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 1081	Posted - 2013.10.13 14:33:00 - [2] - Quote +1 Fox. I agree and made the same points when PC was a week old. CCP has managed to completely short-circuit any game design they might have done on PC by implementing clone packs in their current form. I do think that it's only a placeholder mechanic, but it is a destructive placeholder mechanic - It's war without terrain, and it makes PC so uninteresting that i can't force myself to be interested and don't want to take part. And connecting PC to geopolitics and the resource wars, which i am constantly pointing out is the only way to make DUST relevant and worthwhile, won't help. It would be adding a cash incentive to something fundamentally distasteful. The cross-region magic clone teleport game mechanic is bad. It can't be prettied up or glossed over. It needs to go.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 1265	Posted - 2013.10.13 15:59:00 - [3] - Quote Exactly.
Kristoff Atruin Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1204	Posted - 2013.10.13 16:10:00 - [4] - Quote Heh, when they were talking about starting up PC guys in my corp were going over region maps trying to work out which one it might be so we could plan. I had a really nice strategy worked out for Aridia, with front lines and sheltered clone production facilities to supply the clones and isk needed to support them. Pulling off such a thing with what we have now would be impossible. You could say I was pretty disappointed.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 2735	Posted - 2013.10.13 16:43:00 - [5] - Quote It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant.

Tectonic Fusion The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 350	Posted - 2013.10.13 16:45:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh.
gbghg L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 3629	Posted - 2013.10.13 16:57:00 - [7] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. scrap the current clone packs, the original proposal was much more interesting, it made SI relevant as a research center lowered clone loss over distance and it gave certain systems strategic value as some systems distance from each other gave them a defensive/offensive advantage.

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 2739	Posted - 2013.10.13 16:58:00 - [8] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then


CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 2741	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:01:00 - [9] - Quote gbghg wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. scrap the current clone packs, the original proposal was much more interesting, it made SI relevant as a research center lowered clone loss over distance and it gave certain systems strategic value as some systems distance from each other gave them a defensive/offensive advantage. Yeah that was obviously the idea, the location you generated the clones at was super important, and moving them came at a cost / risk. Clone packs are the broken element in the current design though and we're going to fix that. We're not going to go into too much detail on all that yet, but everyone will get a chance to offer feedback before we do any changes.

TheAmazing FlyingPig Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 4135	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:01:00 - [10] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then That means more time spent on my Amarrian tank then, right? _________________________________________________________________ Gimmie my damn Amarrian tank and rollover SP.

DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 6925	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:02:00 - [11] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then I think it's more a product of always waiting for the base stuff to be working right and smoothly. I think most of us know you're all human and trying your best, we just get frustrated and have trouble looking to the future anymore, at least in any kind of positive light. We kind of just don our cloaks of +3 Negativity and go from there.
Cody Sietz Bullet Cluster 1167	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:02:00 - [12] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then NOOOOO! Don't listen to him! I'll buy 5 tac packs!

CCP Nullarbor C C P C C P Alliance 2741	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:04:00 - [13] - Quote TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then That means more time spent on my Amarrian tank then, right? _________________________________________________________________ Gimmie my damn Amarrian tank and rollover SP. I think if I worked on an amarr tank design it would end up looking a lot more minmatar. You can design vehicles by cutting out bits of paper and gluing them together right?

Toyboi The Rainbow Effect 142	Posted - 2013.10.13 17:09:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then i dont think you should! you shouldent bother with the ads fix and you shouldent bother with a vehical fix! focus on aurum packs and storefront updates! this is all this game needs!! a dev getting buthurt is just plz hype more i did you so good already!
Orca Amsel Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 502	Posted - 2013.10.13 18:16:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Do these planes for PC 2.0 include a battle commander role?
Samuel Zelik D.A.R.K Academy D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 53	Posted - 2013.10.13 18:36:00 - [16] - Quote Just curious: will we ever get Installation skills and/or be able to call in Installations as OMS?
crazy space 1 Unkn0wn Killers 1825	Posted - 2013.10.13 18:42:00 - [17] - Quote Why not something just completely new that instead makes sense? Why not have travel time instead? When sending clones over a long distance they will attack but it will take 5 days before it happens, giving you more time to defend. And if they win they have some units on the ground and they can start producing troops and attacking over a shorter range with a long timer on the clone backups being sent in from far away. The more more districts you control the faster you build up clones and the faster you can spread and attack the surrounding districts daily. But if you want to attack a planet that's full it's going to be a long 5 day haul. It's not just travel time. they need to build an MCC, Get a Warbarge safely across the gates. Build the dropsuits, get everything packed. Attacks within the same system could be a 48 hour timer instead. Making owning a whole system a way to gain a 5 day safety net on all planets within that system. I mean... It would be even cooler if Eve players had to carry us the War Barge to the planet to attack it.... Then it would create a lot of battles in eve online as well.
True Adamance PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 2911	Posted - 2013.10.13 18:46:00 - [18] - Quote TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then That means more time spent on my Amarrian tank then, right? _________________________________________________________________ Gimmie my damn Amarrian tank and rollover SP. Agreed more time spent on Amarrian Tanks is less time spent on elitist groups in PC. St Wolfman of Devdom, please take all the honeyed lamb I have left you in the Cathedral and show me a sign! Like your Assauilt A/1 suit.
Reav Hannari Red Rock Outriders 1622	Posted - 2013.10.13 18:54:00 - [19] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: I think if I worked on an amarr tank design it would end up looking a lot more minmatar. You can design vehicles by cutting out bits of paper and gluing them together right? Is there any other way?
ReGnYuM TeamPlayers EoN. 1052	Posted - 2013.10.13 19:30:00 - [20] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then requesting planetary Statues!

Aeon Amadi A.N.O.N.Y.M.O.U.S. 3329	Posted - 2013.10.13 19:37:00 - [21] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Does Planetary Conquest 2.0 implement restrictions on friendly-locking districts to prevent them from being captured? Round abouts when is Planetary Conquest 2.0 slated, this year or next year? Not trying to sound like a **** about it - legitimate questions
Dirks Macker Enlightened Infantries 79	Posted - 2013.10.13 22:38:00 - [22] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Location, so important in so many things, but so meaningless in Planetary Conquest. CCP promised that Planetary Conquest would be tactical like the board game Risk, but introduction of unlimited Clone Packs changed that. Now every planet is the same from a strategic point of view and there are no defined battle lines. I implore CCP to make Location relevant again! Make Clone Packs only deployable from High Sec systems, with the same clone death rates for travel as when you move clones from a District. This would mean border systems would still be open to new Corps trying to get into Planetary Conquest, while systems deeper into Low Sec could only be attacked by people who owned a district close by. It would give systems deep in Low Sec a greater tactical advantage. It would also create battle lines and make it interesting to look at the district ownership map. If CCP wanted even more control over the tactical situation they could have Clone Packs only deployable from Genolution stations/facilities, which they could place in High Sec systems bordering Low Sec, and then to expand PC in the future they would simply open another Genolution station/facility on the boarder of another Low Sec Region. The problem with your solution is there are no such barriers in EVE. A capital ship (which I'm assuming is what a battle barge is) can just cyno into any low or null sec system. Yours is a 2D fix to a 3D environment. However, they could definitely implement things like neutral spaceport districts on an actual map being the only places you can start a planetary invasion from to mitigate some of your concerns. Personally, I think it would be cool if they went in the direction of cost over distance as the main barrier to corps and alliances hopping all over the map at will. Every player should have a current home or district where they are currently based from. For PC battles, you should have to pay for transport for everyone involved. If you are on the same planet, it would be next to nothing, a small amount for the same system, a lot more to a different constellation, and so on.... This would have no effect on public or FW matches, but it would be interesting if there was a cooldown timer on home changes with penalty charges to transfer before the cooldiwn is up. If they ever expanded PC to other regions or introduced a null sec sov raiding feature, where your clone is located could have a big impact. I also think the metagame would be incredible if vehicles used in PC were corp assets. Throw in similar travel costs as mentioned above and I think you could build a risk-like metagame, with the barriers being cost, not invisible space fences.
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 563	Posted - 2013.10.13 22:52:00 - [23] - Quote Bu, bu, but I thought spamming droplinks, grenades and roof FGs only to run around like a herd of wild animals dancing to the redline was strategy? No?
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 1090	Posted - 2013.10.13 23:56:00 - [24] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: gbghg wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. scrap the current clone packs, the original proposal was much more interesting, it made SI relevant as a research center lowered clone loss over distance and it gave certain systems strategic value as some systems distance from each other gave them a defensive/offensive advantage. Yeah that was obviously the idea, the location you generated the clones at was super important, and moving them came at a cost / risk. Clone packs are the broken element in the current design though and we're going to fix that. We're not going to go into too much detail on all that yet, but everyone will get a chance to offer feedback before we do any changes. I though you original attrition mechanic was pretty good. iirc it was meant to model probable losses from clones being transported in EVE. I suppose that if we were trying to model what the clone packs are doing right now in PC, it would mean a jump-capable ship in EVE. In fact, since there is no failure mechanic associated with genpacks atm, we're prolly talking a black-ops jump/covert cyno. Pehaps a current ship model with clones/support infrastructure in the cargohold, or a current ship with a clone transport rig/module, or a specialized black ops clone transport ship or some/all of the above. Considering what would have to be put on the line in EVE for something like that covert jump to happen, i'd think transportation fees alone would be significant. At any rate, looking forward to see what you peeps have cooked up for PC 2.0
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 1090	Posted - 2013.10.13 23:59:00 - [25] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Bu, bu, but I thought spamming droplinks, grenades and roof FGs only to run around like a herd of wild animals dancing to the redline was strategy? No? +1. I'm still laughing.
Meeko Fent DUST University Ivy League 1156	Posted - 2013.10.14 00:05:00 - [26] - Quote CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. PC 2.0. When?
Vrain Matari ZionTCD 1090	Posted - 2013.10.14 00:08:00 - [27] - Quote ReGnYuM wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: CCP Nullarbor wrote: It was one of our initial design goals but I agree it is lacking right now. Fortunately we are working out plans for Planetary Conquest 2.0 which has some new mechanics to make location more relevant. Meh. Ok we won't bother then requesting planetary Statues! Yes please! Great idea. Ofc, only the Ammar are supercilious and vain enough to actually erect statues in industrial outposts, but that's cool. So long as you make it the one piece of destructable content i'll be a happy as can be. P.S. Don't chince out with the physics, CCP. We need to be able to play LAV-football with her head.
Thurak1 Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 295	Posted - 2013.10.14 00:24:00 - [28] - Quote Yea has this game been released yet or is this still open beta? I would think if this was a release product many of the core issues would be written in stone and that additions would be in the form of different gear and variations of gear. Maybe even new maps and such. Instead we have a game that is still trying to figure out many of the core mechanics and how to get the controllers just right. Myself i still think controller play is lacking. There is no real fine movement everything is very much gross movement. It takes a whole of of movement of the stick just to start moving or to turn.
SgtDoughnut Red Star Jr. EoN. 265	Posted - 2013.10.14 00:52:00 - [29] - Quote Dirks Macker wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Location, so important in so many things, but so meaningless in Planetary Conquest. CCP promised that Planetary Conquest would be tactical like the board game Risk, but introduction of unlimited Clone Packs changed that. Now every planet is the same from a strategic point of view and there are no defined battle lines. I implore CCP to make Location relevant again! Make Clone Packs only deployable from High Sec systems, with the same clone death rates for travel as when you move clones from a District. This would mean border systems would still be open to new Corps trying to get into Planetary Conquest, while systems deeper into Low Sec could only be attacked by people who owned a district close by. It would give systems deep in Low Sec a greater tactical advantage. It would also create battle lines and make it interesting to look at the district ownership map. If CCP wanted even more control over the tactical situation they could have Clone Packs only deployable from Genolution stations/facilities, which they could place in High Sec systems bordering Low Sec, and then to expand PC in the future they would simply open another Genolution station/facility on the boarder of another Low Sec Region. The problem with your solution is there are no such barriers in EVE. A capital ship (which I'm assuming is what a battle barge is) can just cyno into any low or null sec system. Yours is a 2D fix to a 3D environment. However, they could definitely implement things like neutral spaceport districts on an actual map being the only places you can start a planetary invasion from to mitigate some of your concerns. Personally, I think it would be cool if they went in the direction of cost over distance as the main barrier to corps and alliances hopping all over the map at will. Every player should have a current home or district where they are currently based from. For PC battles, you should have to pay for transport for everyone involved. If you are on the same planet, it would be next to nothing, a small amount for the same system, a lot more to a different constellation, and so on.... This would have no effect on public or FW matches, but it would be interesting if there was a cooldown timer on home changes with penalty charges to transfer before the cooldiwn is up. If they ever expanded PC to other regions or introduced a null sec sov raiding feature, where your clone is located could have a big impact. I also think the metagame would be incredible if vehicles used in PC were corp assets. Throw in similar travel costs as mentioned above and I think you could build a risk-like metagame, with the barriers being cost, not invisible space fences. Actually there are barriers, 1 fuel costs for jump capable and bridge capable ships can get pretty expensive, and they have a limited range. They get around faster than using gate travel but every time you light a cyno it sends out a huge becon to everyone in the area HEY GUYS CAPITAL SHIPS HERE!!!!. Secondly in sov space there are cyno jammers, they prevent all cynos, both friendly and enemy from being lit in the area, the way friendly caps get around is you can load up cyno beacons and jump bridges to friendly towers giving people a jump bridge network.
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 218	Posted - 2013.10.14 01:11:00 - [30] - Quote Giving individuals a stake in PC is where we eventually need to get. I still like my idea of sub-districts within a district, and each one can be "owned" by a single individual. But the main point is, make it something that benefits us individually and we'll want it. Right now we're incentivized to fight and win because we'll get cash from biomass, but if owning land has ongoing benefits and additional functionality, and especially if I can tie my name to a specific territory, it will make a big difference. I don't know how to approximate the equivalent of having a "home" in EVE, since (I've never experienced it, but I'm sure) you get a feeling of "coming home" when you enter a particular space. In DUST, we're never in a space unless we're fighting, so we don't have that same psychological connection to our "home base." All the maps are interchangeable, and we're really just fighting for a number--doesn't matter which planet, which district, etc.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page