|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
2527
   |
Posted - 2014.01.20 03:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Again it's the mechanics. PC has to get away from the 24 to 48 hr wait for battles. You should be able to attack and have that battle happen within 30 minutes to an hour. This would eliminate the possibility of small groups of players from controlling huge chunks of land.
It should be a pain in the ass to face AE, but if I've got 80 people online I should be able to put pressure on them. It would be difficult for anyone to dominate even large alliances. You'd have constant battles going on.
Just allow a corp to set a window of 8-12 hours of downtime on their district. It would force corps to use players that aren't on their A teams as well. If you want to see an improvement in gameplay there needs to be a better flow in these attacks.
Take the passive ISK away and increase payouts for attacks, consecutive wins, and multipliers for consecutive successful defenses.
Fixing district locking only guarantees more and more players give up on PC altogether and the continuing flow of ISK to an ever shrinking portion of the player base.
ML Director
Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
2535
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 04:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Arirana wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Again it's the mechanics. PC has to get away from the 24 to 48 hr wait for battles. You should be able to attack and have that battle happen within 30 minutes to an hour. This would eliminate the possibility of small groups of players from controlling huge chunks of land.
It should be a pain in the ass to face AE, but if I've got 80 people online I should be able to put pressure on them. It would be difficult for anyone to dominate even large alliances. You'd have constant battles going on.
Just allow a corp to set a window of 8-12 hours of downtime on their district. It would force corps to use players that aren't on their A teams as well. If you want to see an improvement in gameplay there needs to be a better flow in these attacks.
Take the passive ISK away and increase payouts for attacks, consecutive wins, and multipliers for consecutive successful defenses.
Fixing district locking only guarantees more and more players give up on PC altogether and the continuing flow of ISK to an ever shrinking portion of the player base. ^^^ Window timers should be how its played. A corp sets their districts to a certain timer, and at any time during that timer, a corp could attack them and the battle would take place within the hour. Fixing district locking is still necessary to make it fair. I know it will force more corps to quit which is why I want to immediately implement MHR after the district lock fix. It would be better if CCP implemented tiericide in PC though :/
If you take away passive ISK and provide larger payouts for successful attacks and defenses with multipliers for consecutive wins I don't think you'd have any incentive to lock districts. Small corps, no matter how good, couldn't control so much land. You'd see a lot more activity in PC and I think it wouldn't take long for the overall competitiveness to rise.
ML Director
Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
Public Disorder.
2536
|
Posted - 2014.01.20 15:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Arirana wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Arirana wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Again it's the mechanics. PC has to get away from the 24 to 48 hr wait for battles. You should be able to attack and have that battle happen within 30 minutes to an hour. This would eliminate the possibility of small groups of players from controlling huge chunks of land.
It should be a pain in the ass to face AE, but if I've got 80 people online I should be able to put pressure on them. It would be difficult for anyone to dominate even large alliances. You'd have constant battles going on.
Just allow a corp to set a window of 8-12 hours of downtime on their district. It would force corps to use players that aren't on their A teams as well. If you want to see an improvement in gameplay there needs to be a better flow in these attacks.
Take the passive ISK away and increase payouts for attacks, consecutive wins, and multipliers for consecutive successful defenses.
Fixing district locking only guarantees more and more players give up on PC altogether and the continuing flow of ISK to an ever shrinking portion of the player base. ^^^ Window timers should be how its played. A corp sets their districts to a certain timer, and at any time during that timer, a corp could attack them and the battle would take place within the hour. Fixing district locking is still necessary to make it fair. I know it will force more corps to quit which is why I want to immediately implement MHR after the district lock fix. It would be better if CCP implemented tiericide in PC though :/ If you take away passive ISK and provide larger payouts for successful attacks and defenses with multipliers for consecutive wins I don't think you'd have any incentive to lock districts. Small corps, no matter how good, couldn't control so much land. You'd see a lot more activity in PC and I think it wouldn't take long for the overall competitiveness to rise. Not really... a locked district battle would still be a successful defense, which would only increase the profit of locking districts. There is no way to make locking districts less profitable without making PC less profitable in general. That goes for making it more profitable as well. District locking needs to become easily counterable.
You are correct, district locking could become more profitable in my scenario which wouldn't solve anything.
What if NPC corporations acted as Real Estate Brokers? If you do not hold a district you have to purchase a district and the only way to launch clones would be from an owned district.
Obviously this would mean expanding the arena.
ML Director
Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
|
|
|
| |
|