DUST Search - Are we expecting more districts to be opened in 1.8?

All Channels

The Council's Chamber

Are we expecting more districts to be opened in 1.8?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DaNizzle4shizle Zero-Day Attack Zero-Day 329	Posted - 2014.01.22 18:00:00 - [1] - Quote As the title says. Acting CEO of Zero-Day Attack. Forum warrior 0.3 Proud owner of PFC district. Contact me and we can set up a battle time
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1174	Posted - 2014.01.22 18:25:00 - [2] - Quote I wouldn't look to see any new districts opened until CCP manages to get the ones they have working well. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
DaNizzle4shizle Zero-Day Attack Zero-Day 329	Posted - 2014.01.22 19:18:00 - [3] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I wouldn't look to see any new districts opened until CCP manages to get the ones they have working well. i heard that they are fixing district locking or something like that. maybe after they fix this, we will see new districts being unlocked. thanks for the info though. Acting CEO of Zero-Day Attack. Forum warrior 0.3 Proud owner of PFC district. Contact me and we can set up a battle time
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1179	Posted - 2014.01.22 19:25:00 - [4] - Quote I really hope they fix district locking for 1.8. But it's important that they don't open new districts until we're certain any changes they make to PC are actually effective. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
DaNizzle4shizle Zero-Day Attack Zero-Day 330	Posted - 2014.01.22 19:30:00 - [5] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: I really hope they fix district locking for 1.8. But it's important that they don't open new districts until we're certain any changes they make to PC are actually effective. yeah i understand that. but why won't they take the time to respond to the topics that are important like this and the alliance tab. YES I AM BUMPING FOR THE ALLIANCE TAB NOX! a lot of topics that are important to the new edan unverse are just being ignored by the devs. i also never see the GM posting anymore. Acting CEO of Zero-Day Attack. Forum warrior 0.3 Proud owner of PFC district. Contact me and we can set up a battle time
Matobar Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 224	Posted - 2014.01.22 19:36:00 - [6] - Quote They probably won't open any districts for the foreseeable future. It turns out that, when they opened up Molden Heath, the EVE traffic to the region actually decreased. Since EVE is CCP's cash cow...
Spartacus Dust The-Legionnaires The CORVOS 57	Posted - 2014.01.22 21:25:00 - [7] - Quote I imagine that more districts will not come until PC 2.0 EVE traffic on the other hand hasn't really decreased. There are plenty of valuable moons in the region that people constantly fight over, I have seen multiple carriers the other day and plenty of battleships to take down the pos's. There is also an influx of EVE/DUST players in Molden Heath, especially in the highsec region, where they gave up on PC to pursue mining, because pirates are "mean" and "nasty" and there's no "reward" for fighting in Molden Heath or killing Dusties in PC. When more benefits come out of PC for EVE players, more EVE players will get involved. The only people who really do orbitals are either playing dust at the same time and dying or they are EVE players who really care about their DUST corps. Candidate for CPM1, ONE UNIVERSE//ONE WAR
xAckie Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 406	Posted - 2014.01.23 10:14:00 - [8] - Quote I am not entirely sure fixing district locking will help increase the number of corps in PC. Nor will opening up space. There are plenty of districts to take in PC even outside of PFC but I dont see the majority of Dust corps attempting to do this. Opening up more districts/ space will not fix this problem. different size PvP districts (from 8v8 to 64v64) and the removal of passive ISK generation would help more. The removal of passive ISK generation would mean new incentive to be introduced: a big enough pay off for actually attacking and taking a district.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1201	Posted - 2014.01.23 14:47:00 - [9] - Quote 64v64 is an unrealistic expectation, xAckie. It's obviously not coming any time soon. I'd love to see 8v8 for some districts, and removing passive ISK will be the largest change, as it'll remove the incentive for corps to try to hold ALL THE DISTRICTS. Additionally, when CCP does figure out a better incentive for playing in PC, it should vary from district to district. Some districts should be "better" than others. That will cause the better corps to find some districts not worth their time and effort, which will provide good starter points for new groups. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2227	Posted - 2014.01.23 16:16:00 - [10] - Quote I too would like to see some smaller districts that only allow 8v8 battles, so that smaller Corps might have a chance of holding them. I donGÇÖt think removing the ISK generating potential of districts is a good idea, but I do think that it should be a much more complex system. Personally I am inclined toward a system similar to Planetary Interaction in EVE, only run by Corporations rather than individual players. As Soraya says, a system were the resources vary would make some districts more important and some districts less important to a corp, depending on what they were trying to produce. It would also make some planets more valuable than others. I also would really like location to matter in Planetary Conquest. PC was setup that way, and then the introduction of unlimited clone packs just before it went live ruined the larger tactical aspect of PC. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014

xAckie Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 407	Posted - 2014.01.24 10:08:00 - [11] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: I donGÇÖt think removing the ISK generating potential of districts is a good idea, but I do think that it should be a much more complex system. If an 8v8 district generates ISK a top corp will just put their top 8 to take it (or not to depending on opposition) to farm. It will be even easier to hold large tracts of land/ districts with just 8v8 numbers. Top corps could hold lots of these indefinitely by having timers between their 16 men districts. It would either be done for the lulz or for the ability to have their own proto isk salary for FW - hence the need to change the incentives from passive to active. the reason that 64v64 (anf higher) has to come is that will allow alliances and numbers to matter. It might not be coming as it has taken CCP so long to actually deal/ resolve the lag in PC but they need to implement it and quick. I was playing 128v128 in 2010. If alliances / corps have access to battles on that scale then dynamics change and PC will become less about a handful of active corps as it is now (minus PFC members)
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2230	Posted - 2014.01.24 11:27:00 - [12] - Quote If you could not get anything from having a district, what is the point of owning a district? I think our current problems stem from location not mattering. Small corps canGÇÖt take some backwater system with no strategic value, because all districts are of equal value. A large corp can just as easily hold 1 district on ever planet, as holding whole planets. There is no supply chain to stretch thin, no over extending themselves (other than just holding too many districts). PC was supposed to be like the board game RISK, but with clone packs it is like a board game where you can move any piece to any square in a single move. Not much of a game. To have 64v64 on the PS3 we would have to have smaller simpler maps with much smaller polygon counts.We would still probably have lag issues. When you played 128v128 in 2010 were you playing against people on the other side of the planet? Or were you on a local server? Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
Noragee Silverfire HavoK Core RISE of LEGION 47	Posted - 2014.01.24 12:04:00 - [13] - Quote In MAG the smallest player count was 16v16 and went up to 128v128. There were regional servers but like Dust there was no segregation of player base by server.
xAckie Ahrendee Mercenaries EoN. 408	Posted - 2014.01.24 13:12:00 - [14] - Quote Quote: If you could not get anything from having a district, what is the point of owning a district? If corps can earn while holding 8v8 the same situation will still happen. people will hold land to fund their own FW games in addition to their corps. thats why you only get rewarded if you attack. The incentive is to fight. Not to passively farm. You get bragging rights for holding land. Its all there is at the moment. Quote: A large corp can just as easily hold 1 district on ever planet, as holding whole planets. There is no supply chain to stretch thin, no over extending themselves (other than just holding too many districts). This is the problem with PC and trying to somehow fit it into Eve workings. We are not tied to Eve, null or anything and dont see that happening for a long time (sadly) so holding land that has economic value and supply chains to be stretched is off the table. I would like to see districts have numerous timers (6/8?) that have to be defended. this and passive isk generation is the only way I can see a solution to mass district timer stacking. Quote: PC was supposed to be like the board game RISK, but with clone packs it is like a board game where you can move any piece to any square in a single move. Not much of a game. totally agree. I have no idea why CCP introduced it like this. A lattice system like risk would make so much more sense. Using clone packs to go anywhere defeats the point of the star system. its introduction would make certain districts and planets more valuable as gateways to other land. As Noragee says It was MAG and all were on the local server. They also had a mode of 64 v 64. to make it an MMO they need to increase the player count in game modes.
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1222	Posted - 2014.01.24 15:13:00 - [15] - Quote Just because MAG could do 128 vs 128 on a PS3 doesn't mean EVE can. The engine is drastically different. The reason clone packs are unlimited, is because CCP realized what most of us from EVE side already knew: Limiting it to one clone pack per corp would simply spawn heavier use of alt corps. I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2238	Posted - 2014.01.24 16:10:00 - [16] - Quote The solution to the Clone pack issue is to give them the same movement restrictions as moving clones from districts, and then restrict where you can deploy them from. I suggested having to deploy them from High Sec systems, or further restrict it by having to deploy them from Genolution Stations, so CCP can control deployment range by where it places Genolution stations (or just stations with Genolution offices). Then new Corps could get into PC using clone packs, but clone packs would not reach deep into Low Sec, so getting into or defending those areas would involve location based play such as using choke points and capturing beachheads. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 983	Posted - 2014.01.25 00:01:00 - [17] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Just because MAG could do 128 vs 128 on a PS3 doesn't mean DUST can. The engine is drastically different. The reason clone packs are unlimited, is because CCP realized what most of us from EVE side already knew: Limiting it to one clone pack per corp would simply spawn heavier use of alt corps. Sorry Soraya, but had to correct that since EVE can do 128v 128 (and even larger numbers in fact.) The original idea was clone pack available until you had a district, but it was quickly abandoned for the reasons Soraya said above. A possible solution as Fox said above is to have Stations limiting the movement speed, but with EVE integration of Warbarge Control, you can gain an edge by being able to transport clones yourself to desired location. But then you'd have the warbarge (slated to essentially be a big brick with engines and little else) vulnerable to EVE attack. Rewarding those who utilise EVE, but allowing DUST to function on it's own as well using the stations as jump-off points. The Only issue I have is adding new stations (or reassigning them). Whereas the ability to move (but not deploy) clone numbers may be more in line, to stations that you can then use as jump off points. Thus requiring less of EVE to be impacted in the outlay of the idea, (keep their existing network) while still making some systems harder to strike as they may be 2 - 3 jumps from any stations. It also ties in well for any future move to Null Sec, as Stations are far fewer out there in PLayer-Controlled Space, and makes EVE integration in Null all the more important (but again, not actually needed.) "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Soraya Xel The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 1226	Posted - 2014.01.25 00:48:00 - [18] - Quote Good catch, Black Jackal. ;) Though once you get to around 3,000 v. 3,000 or so, EVE nodes start to die. :( I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 984	Posted - 2014.01.25 10:06:00 - [19] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Good catch, Black Jackal. ;) Though once you get to around 3,000 v. 3,000 or so, EVE nodes start to die. :( Truly, but what other game can say they have 3000 players Vs. 3000 players in ANY PvP Action while also maintaining other nodes for the non-involved. I have high hopes that one day we will see that same magic happen in DUST. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 863	Posted - 2014.01.25 13:13:00 - [20] - Quote Can't imagine we'd see an expansion from Molden Heath till at least 2.0, even if PC 2.0 comes out in 1.8 or 1.9. Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot CEO of DUST University

The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 987	Posted - 2014.01.25 14:12:00 - [21] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Can't imagine we'd see an expansion from Molden Heath till at least 2.0, even if PC 2.0 comes out in 1.8 or 1.9. Actually I'd prefer to keep it in Molden Heath until we have the additional planet types to fight on. Simply adding in these would give us greater variety in usage and maps, as well as atmospheres, and also open up MANY more districts without spreading the DUST player base out more. "Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys." Sun Tzu
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 864	Posted - 2014.01.25 14:23:00 - [22] - Quote Agreed. Untill this works clutch free and has a meaningful impact on Eve, we can't expect the null sec alliances ( and null sec is where PC is best suited) to get behind it and help expand Dust in New Eden. Mercenary Clone of Dennie Fleetfoot CEO of DUST University
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2249	Posted - 2014.01.25 22:33:00 - [23] - Quote Ok, how about this. Clone packs can only be purchased from stations that have a Genolution Corporate offices. Adding a Corporate office to a station is easier and has less impact on EVE than adding a station. Transport of the Clones is done in EVE using a War Barge class ship. Clones can also be transferred from districts you own, to a friendly War Barge in orbit anchored over your district. Attacks on other districts are launched from a War Barge anchoring over the target district. To accommodate DUST Corps that do not have EVE support, have the ability to contract an NPC War Barge to move Clones. Since the NPC War Barge will not have EVE player support, give it more hit points than the Player Owned War Barge, but still make it killable if a large group of Battleships catch it in transit. Give it a very high Warp Strength so it canGÇÖt be easily warp scrambled/disrupted, but make it drop out of warp 30km from the gate like when using autopilot. It is big and slow. The more gates the NPC War Barge has to pass through, the longer the enemy fleet has to pound on it, so on longer trips it can be taken down by smaller fleets. Once the War Barge is anchored over a district, have it become invulnerable until after the battle. Any EVE PVPer will tell yeah that going through a gate is the most dangerous part of travel. The more jumps you have to make the more dangerous the trip. This would definitely make location important. Attacking districts in the same system would mean that you would not have to go through any gates, while controlling a dead end constellation would mean you can avoid high traffic systems. Strong DUST Corps that donGÇÖt have strong EVE support can use NPC War Barges, but will likely only move one or two systems for an attack because the chance of loosing a War Barge with all its clones will go up with every gate it has to jump through. Smaller Corps with both an EVE and DUST presence can get a War Barge into a back water system and try to hold that system. Strong EVE Corps can help their DUST friends get to any system they want to attack, by defending the War Barge against attack, but then their DUST friends still have to win the fight on the ground. Finally, to avoid having to have people sitting in space watching for War Barges all day, make it so you have to register the District attack with CONCORD before you are authorized to transfer Clones to a War Barge, so the defending Corp gets a notifications that the attacking Corp is loading a War Barge somewhere for an attack on a specified district. After the attack order is launched, there should be a two hour window in which the War Barge can anchor over the target district. If they donGÇÖt get their in the 2 hour window, they will not be able to anchor. So, each Planetary Conquest district attack will have two phases. First and EVE phase where the War Barge can be destroyed, killing all the clones. Second the fight on the ground if the attacking War Barge manages to anchor over the district. Edit: Of course something needs to be added to make owning Districts very important to EVE Alliances. Fox Gaden: DUST Wall of Fame, 2014
Killar-12 The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2086	Posted - 2014.01.26 05:35:00 - [24] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Agreed. Untill this works clutch free and has a meaningful impact on Eve, we can't expect the null sec alliances ( and null sec is where PC is best suited) to get behind it and help expand Dust in New Eden. Null sec guys don't care , Goons and Gents both seem to care, not a HUGE amount but enough to have SPERG and Top Men. A-Teams win Battles B-Teams win Campaigns C-Teams win Wars


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.