DUST Search - So seeing as PC 1.0 is dead

Soraya Xel wrote:

M1tch, I never said the current mechanics weren't broken. The fact that it's more profitable to hold a district than to rent it out (passive ISK) proves that much. But the reality is, for a sandbox to exist here, options like renting has to exist. And renting is a model that ensures more people get a chance to play in the territory than they would be able to otherwise. A large amount of people who live in nullsec space, for example, do not have anywhere near the means to hold nullsec space, even a small amount. However, those players, due to a rental model, are able to weigh the risks and rewards of doing so, and living there under the protection of a larger party, while remaining independent.

Renting models allow more people to be involved. The current dominant corps aren't renting, so I'm not "patting them on the back". The game model doesn't really support renting right now, since again, you make more on passive ISK than you can on rental fees, so the current game doesn't provide any reason to rent. If profit can only be made in PC through something like PvE, then there would be a reason to lease districts, if the larger entity didn't want to involve themselves with running the PvE modes, for example.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
M1tch Rapp Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 106	Posted - 2014.04.02 12:15:00 - [1] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: RemingtonBeaver wrote: It is apparent that PC corporations are in no position to govern themselves as many found that grouping together to monopolize the game mode is far more profitable that playing it as intended. The renting of districts and paying protection fees is not what was intended. It has turned into its worst possible form. An extortion machine. The Council should weigh in on this topic. I'm especially interested in how Kain Spero feels about it, considering he played a part in orchestrating this method of exaction and extortion. Actually, I suggest you check out this game called "EVE Online", where a significant portion of the game's economy runs on rental systems. I would, in fact, suggest that the game is specifically intended to have renting of districts. Congrats, you are on my list of people not to vote for. Comparing a game where the sandbox is limited to 32 players at a time to one where 1000s could be involved in single battle is a reach. Not just that but one is a FPS and one is a mouse click space vessel simulator. Let's imagine that all the districts in Molden Heath were set to the same timer in order to determine the maximum number of players that could be involved in Planetary Conquest at the same time. 245 districts x 32 players = 7840 players To be more realistic lets just say that thousands of players SHOULD be involved in Planetary Conquest. The poor mechanics that others have mentioned have slowly dwindled down the number of players willing to participate. If you take away PFC and front corps the number of corporations participating in Planetary Conquest is embarrassingly low. Before we go patting the current dominant corps in PC on the back and commending them for becoming BOB or Goonswarm it should be considered that the taking over 100% of MH was a war of attrition that CCP had more to do with than 100's of MCCs being destroyed.
M1tch Rapp Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 106	Posted - 2014.04.02 13:05:00 - [2] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: M1tch, I never said the current mechanics weren't broken. The fact that it's more profitable to hold a district than to rent it out (passive ISK) proves that much. But the reality is, for a sandbox to exist here, options like renting has to exist. And renting is a model that ensures more people get a chance to play in the territory than they would be able to otherwise. A large amount of people who live in nullsec space, for example, do not have anywhere near the means to hold nullsec space, even a small amount. However, those players, due to a rental model, are able to weigh the risks and rewards of doing so, and living there under the protection of a larger party, while remaining independent. Renting models allow more people to be involved. The current dominant corps aren't renting, so I'm not "patting them on the back". The game model doesn't really support renting right now, since again, you make more on passive ISK than you can on rental fees, so the current game doesn't provide any reason to rent. If profit can only be made in PC through something like PvE, then there would be a reason to lease districts, if the larger entity didn't want to involve themselves with running the PvE modes, for example. I hadn't had my coffee yet when I harshly judged you off of one comment, I apologize. Working out the particulars of making PC work is something I'm not afraid to admit is probably above my head. I will say that in order for it to grow into something meaningful CCP will need to figure out a way to open it up to more players. I don't believe just throwing more districts out there is the solution. I certainly don't think moving it to a more harsh environment and allowing Eve players to contract corps is something that needs to happen in the near future. In fact I think PC should be shelved until CCP works out a team deploy feature and figures out a new pub match payout system that pushes people out of the redline and off of roofs. In my opinion the team play aspect of Dust has eroded slowly since we left closed beta. Closed beta players seemed more willing to fight despite losing ISK in the process. The current Dust playerbase seems to play a risk averse style that is much more concerned with losing suits than winning battles. With a playerbase that largely has not been exposed to full team deploy I don't know why we would have a game mode that is the ONLY method of team deploy but is basically a 2 million ISK per man investment (or 8-10 pub matches in free suits) to try out. This is one of the better examples you'll find of cart before horse. And in the meantime Dust's best players are obtaining more ISK than they can ever spend.
M1tch Rapp Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 115	Posted - 2014.04.03 12:58:00 - [3] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Eddie Rio wrote: i just hope they find a way to do away with the timer,, i dont want to have to log on at specific times each day,, i wish it was instant (or within an hour of sending an attack order.. if ccp find a way to do this i think PC will be so cool,, Really? Do you REALLY want people attacking your districts when you are at work, or when you are sleeping? Have you thought this through at all? If you look at PC just as a way of generating matches, then stick to Pub matches. PC is supposed to be about holding territory, but it is unreasonable to have to have a full team on standby 24 hours a day, so instead we have timbers. This is where having active members comes in. It's a two sided coin. Not only are your districts vulnerable, but so are everyone else's. If the land itself isn't the value, but the battles themselves that lead to the riches it could work. I think this is a better approach to fill the gap while a better Eve/Dust connection is created. It's not just that but there aren't enough players in Dust that even know how to play within a squad, much less as a team. We've been playing PC since it opened up and our tactics are bush league in comparison to what AE and ERA throws out there. I mean these guys know what you are going to do before you do it, they do things to make you go where you think you need to go and you fall into a trap. It's impressive, but it's a level of gameplay in Dust that a handful of teams are capable of. CCP and the CPM as far as I can tell has been concerned with the new player experience and the pub ISK payout system forcing this "if you can't afford to lose it don't use it" mentality and it's really killed the skill level of the average Dust player. Examples, "I can't kill these dudes and I'm not losing any more suits so I'm going to snipe" or "I'm going to drive a murder taxi" all while solo. They make up for than half of each team in pubs, solo players derping around the battlefield. Anyway, more land and quicker turnaround of battles after attack would FORCE corps into using players they don't normally use for PC. By default this would raise the skill level of the average Dust player.
M1tch Rapp Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 115	Posted - 2014.04.03 13:06:00 - [4] - Quote Jaysyn Larrisen wrote: M1tch Rapp wrote: This is one of the better examples you'll find of cart before horse. And in the meantime Dust's best players are obtaining more ISK than they can ever spend. M1tch...one of my frustrations is that many of Dust's best aren't getting richer. There are actually large numbers of very good players and high quality smaller corps that simply can't even get in the arena so to speak. At this point the landowning mechanics and economic advantage is so heavily tilted it removes the option of even competing for many. There's no doubt that there are some great players that haven't been involved in PC. The issue now is that while the majority of Dust sat on the sidelines waiting for a better PC system, the elite players in Dust monopolized PC and have hundreds of battles against each other. The learning curve for the average Dust corp is so steep to take on most of those in this blue donut that it seems insurmountable. Even if you take ISK out of the equation the experience level of the guys dominating PC is off the charts in comparison to the rest of Dust.
M1tch Rapp Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 119	Posted - 2014.04.04 13:23:00 - [5] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: M1tch Rapp wrote: This is where having active members comes in. It's a two sided coin. Not only are your districts vulnerable, but so are everyone else's. If the land itself isn't the value, but the battles themselves that lead to the riches it could work. I think this is a better approach to fill the gap while a better Eve/Dust connection is created. So you want to turn PC into Pub matches? I fundamentally disagree with that view! The appeal of Planetary Conquest is the ability to hold land. DonGÇÖt write off the premise based on an inadequate implementation. Just because they screwed it up the first time does not mean that it canGÇÖt be done right. I don't see how that's the same as pub matches at all. This would be a way to open up the sandbox a little bit. I can tell you that judging by some of the moves by an entity people are growing to hate, I think that numbers are going to matter in whatever changes are coming in PC 2.0. Right now a huge portion of corporations are alienated from PC. If anything having large numbers of PC capable mercenaries with the current mechanics HURTS you because you are not focusing on cohesion and perfecting tactics with a small group. In other words it's better to have 30 players on a PC team that play together every single day and know each other backwards and forwards. Maybe I'm crazy but anything that incentivizes tiny groups as opposed to involving the entire corporation is going to hold the game back.