|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
1938
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 20:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
What about using something like this Low Cost Mercenary Assault Unit (MAU) and variations of it to generate contracts from Eve into Dust.
1) Go to Mercenary Contracting Depot Station/System and purchase one of these. They could have a variety of costs, some could be manufactured, others just bought from NPCs. Some could have more clones than others and pay base rates (isk per minutes in game). These could also just be blueprints bought from the FW store with a few different options for each militia (low/medium/high-120/150/175 clones)
2) Store Mercenary Assault Unit in cargo bay or put in launcher?.
3) Fly above district you wish to assault (must be owned by enemy).
4) Approach district and launch MAU.
5) Your assault contract then enters a queue. You can see the status of your MAU in your journal.
6) The mercenary Contracting Depots will show the status of all current contracts throughout the region.
7) Mercs in Dust can also interface with these contracts and select for themselves which ones they would like to support. All defensive contracts are auto-generated to complement the assault and funded at the default clone rate of 150 clones per battle.
8) Owners of the MAU may set the conditions of their contract as soon as the MAU is launched (corp invite only/Public/ standing level). All defensive contracts are public. |
Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
1938
|
Posted - 2013.12.30 20:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
BMSTUBBY wrote:Kain Spero wrote:BMSTUBBY wrote:Kain Spero wrote:The deal is the current system does allow you to reliably deploy up 16 people to faction warfare. The problem is that the where and enabling the system to easily allow fights against other full teams for a larger purpose just isn't quite there. Just having team deploy without any deeper doesn't really do anything. If this is the reason why team deploy is being held up then I find that sad. Give us team deploy and allow us to team up with our own corp and then fix the where and why. Give us a team finder like we have a squad finder so that if we do not have a team we can at least try and find one. I understand the end game of the where and why and that is the one reason why I have played this game this long. I have been waiting for the where and the why, but if the where and the why is holding up team deploy then that is just bad. If all you want is to fight with 16 people in your own corp on one side in a FW match you can do that already. If that is all you think team deploy is then the feature for you is live already. Log in, organize your coms, and enjoy. No it is not, that is Q syncing. I want Team/Clan Deploy, which allows a team/clan to enter a queue as one group. Not this Q sync BS.
I think a fairly simple approach would be something like a contract that is temporarily locked for your squad/corp, but then turns public eventually? |
Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
1944
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 18:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:BursegSardaukar wrote:
Remove LP payouts if the player/corp/alliance isn't a member of FW, let them choose a side when they connect to the district, then flag them as suspect for as long as they are connected. It solves all problems.
So you want to remove the only reward a player gets it will reduce players trying. I have fac war eve toons and the rewards aren't enough to really risk it so players do it out of their own want to. plexing is still more profitable and much safer then being bait waiting for OBs
If what you want, Burseg, is pirates/non militia corps interested in causing havoc in dust, I think the best bet would be contracts to attack/capture POCOs or districts under their control.
To spend time developing what would amount to a rarely used trolling mechanic in the FW warzone would be a waste. |
Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
1944
|
Posted - 2013.12.31 19:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
BursegSardaukar wrote: ...All my EVE guys do it for the kill mails. If a fight breaks out in system to kill even more stuff in space, they like that, too, more mails for the killboard. KM's are the best motivator CCP has made to get my guys interested in bombardments since the mechanic was introduced a year ago...
...I honestly would just shoot anyone not in my fleet that was on the beacon regardless of who they were bombarding for, so my bombardment guys would have less competition as they go to pull the trigger.
Once 'blowing stuff up' becomes the end in and of itself, this game will be over. Destruction should be a part of the narrative of Dust, but it won't propel the game to be great. I would hope that we could ascend a little bit above designing a system that is just a Pavlovian slobber machine. |
Beren Hurin
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
1953
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 20:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
So this is more of a PC thing....stop reading if you don't care about it...
I really think the next form on PC will involve some kind of active upkeep. Without the manual active upkeep of some kind, you won't be able to make your districts generate clones (or at least profitably). The upkeep could payoff in both better clone production (which will more likely just be fore battle) but also produce some other resources for Eve that are possibly exported.
The cost of upkeep though will basically be the labor it takes to do it, therefore district ownership will scale directly with amount of land owned. You'd have to contract out the upkeep of your land to other people you trust or risk your clones becoming too low and vulnerable.
If for example, it could be announced that districts would regularly have timers corresponding to 'planetary shipping' or something and that these time periods could be vulnerable to ambush 'cycle' style attacks. This could even be within a few hours or so of the normal reinforcement window. However they wouldn't be subject to districts being 'locked'. Each window would allow for an ambush or two each day which, if successful, could allow the pillaging of these desired goods that were being shipped away for export.
It could be kind of like PI, where you could have your production facility making a shipment sent to your warehouse every 12 hours, and this production rate would net the fastest rate of total production. However, it would be subject to attack every 12 hours too (or whatever the cycle length). Instead, you could settle for a slower rate of production and shipping every 48 hours only having to defend 1/4th the amount. Some infrastructure could allow for better production rates, others could be more defensive, ensuring that raids take a smaller portion of stored/shipped assets. The more districts, the more cycles, the more production, the more defending, etc.
If you had 5 districts you could have as little as 17 times potentially each weak, or as many as 70 depending on how you set up your cycles.
Infrastructure Example:
Production facility: Produces 300/500/675/800 widgets during a 12/24/36/48 hours cycle. Stores 1600 widgets. Ships/exports max of 800 widgets per cycle. Excess widgets are destroyed. Raids: can steal 50% of a cycle's produced widgets.
Warehouse: Produces 0 widgets Stores 10,000 widgets/5000 advanced widgets. Ships/exports max of 2,000/3,000/5,000 widgets every 12/24/48 cycle. Raids: can steal 25% of a warehouse's stored widgets/advanced widgets.
Research Lab: Produces advanced widgets from widgets at an efficiency of 40%/35%/25% every 12/24/48 hour cycle (max of 1,000 adv widgets per cycle). Stores: 2,500 widgets total. Ships/exports: 1,000 widgets per cycle Raids: can steal 50% of a cycle's advanced widgets.
Every cycle, if your infrastructure has an output, it can be stored/shipped/or exported. If it is exported it moves to the planetary custom's office where someone from the corp with access rights can retrieve it.
Hopefully you'd get the basics of this. There would be logistics supply chains that would need to be defended constantly in order to maintain maximum production. Minimal production would still be possible and profitable with much less risk, but also less profit. |
|
|
|