|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1441
   |
Posted - 2014.04.14 16:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?
This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing.
Honestly, if you want more fights you need to lower the cost of clone packs not raise it. If you increase payouts, remove passive ISK generation and reduce clone pack costs then you'll see a lot more people fighting in PC. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1443
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 16:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:Kain Spero wrote:I've heard lots of different views on the issue, but I would like to hear as many opinions as possible. If there was no passive ISK and you only got ISK from fighting would you want to hold land?
This would also be in light of increasing clone pack sizes back to their original 150 at the current 300k per clone cost. Fighting getting you double what you receive now but no passive ISK to prop up payroll, vehicle reimbursement, or the hiring of ringers. The only issue is you only collect the payment when you win your fights and if you can't win your fights you end up with nothing. Honestly, if you want more fights you need to lower the cost of clone packs not raise it. If you increase payouts, remove passive ISK generation and reduce clone pack costs then you'll see a lot more people fighting in PC. You can't have the per clone cost in a clone pack be less than the payout for biomass. If you do you end up with people clone pack attacking in order to kill the clone pack and make ISK.
So remove biomass as the payout basis, link it to salvage and the total cost of gear spent on the match. Winner gets XX% of total expenditure on match. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1443
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 16:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
How about remove clone costs from the equation completely?
Attack contract costs 16 Million. This money goes into the payout pool. Defender wins, every merc gets 1 mil + 25% value of all equipment destroyed in match. Attacker wins, they get their money back + 25% value. No show results in automatic win for defender.
Defending your land earns you money, successful attacks earn a small amount of money and put you closer to ownership. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1444
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 17:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:How about remove clone costs from the equation completely?
Attack contract costs 16 Million. This money goes into the payout pool. Defender wins, every merc gets 1 mil + 25% value of all equipment destroyed in match. Attacker wins, they get their money back + 25% value. No show results in automatic win for defender.
Defending your land earns you money, successful attacks earn a small amount of money and put you closer to ownership. Wouldn't work. The numbers are to low to make pc worth fighting. Plus attacking an winning has to be more valuable then not fighting at all. YOU have to have motivation to HOLD districts is where that breaks down. A lot of these suggestions are trying to solve 1 small problem and not realizing the PC as a whole is quiet complex in nature.
The overall concept still stands, now we are starting to argue about the details. So up the contract price to 32 Million, increase payout of destroyed equipment. A point can be found where it is cheap enough for most corps to work up an attack contract and the payout is high enough to reward a win on either side. It would be nice to see a dynamic that would lead to significant decisions about what equipment to field too.
I personally would like to see successful attacks being nearly zero gain isk wise. Defending would be where you would make your money. But holding territory without any activity would be minimal or no gain. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1446
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 21:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
We are all discussing putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound here. PC is, at best, high stakes, winner take all skirmish, at worst, an ISK faucet. Pull the plug, start over with a more meaningful Dust/EVE crossover game mode. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1453
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
To answer OPs question, yes we would fight for and hold land in PC without passive ISK, IF the costs to do so were reasonable.
PC is currently the only game mode that allows team deploy. Many of our members would embrace the chance to fight full team vs team battles like we used to in the old Corp contract days. Would we get knocked around a bit? Of course, but if the price was right, we would welcome the opportunity to get better. |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1457
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 18:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Outlaw OneZero wrote:To answer OPs question, yes we would fight for and hold land in PC without passive ISK, IF the costs to do so were reasonable.
PC is currently the only game mode that allows team deploy. Many of our members would embrace the chance to fight full team vs team battles like we used to in the old Corp contract days. Would we get knocked around a bit? Of course, but if the price was right, we would welcome the opportunity to get better. It would change the trajectory of Dust in a big way if PC as we know it was changed to a glorified corp battle system. Dropping the cost of clone packs to next to nothing and removing passive ISK would make this happen. Just use the payout system for pubs for the winners only with a higher multiplier and as someone said above give the loser 50% of the payout that the winner gets. This brings in all of Dust and gives them some time to prepare in a team deploy environment for PC 2.0.
PC has no real impact on EVE right now, so why not bring the rest of the players back into this game mode and end the passive ISK gain? |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1464
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 15:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Kain Spero wrote:I think CCP understands that there are complex issues regarding Planetary Conquest with some potentially straight forward changes that could improve the situation. The most important of these issues being passive ISK and clone pack size. Is there any chance that we may see them demonstrate this understanding in the very near future?
Better question, what did you tell them the community wants? |
Outlaw OneZero
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1466
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:The meeting with CCP went very well.
I think CCP understands that there are complex issues regarding Planetary Conquest with some potentially straight forward changes that could improve the situation. The most important of these issues being passive ISK and clone pack size.
I'll guess that since you didn't mention it, significant clone pack cost reduction was not part of your discussion, enjoy your continued blue donut... |
|
|
| |
|