|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2773
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 20:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Definitely don't see the reason to grind out all day fighting for land that you don't benefit or get rewards from.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2774
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 20:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:The problem with PC is that there really isnt a lot of reason to desire holding a district without passive isk generation. If you remove that, it becomes the old corporation battle system with a really complex interface. There needs to be a reason for players to desire holding/owning a district and clearly passive isk generation is not a great motivator. But, that level of change requires a large iteration and will be a while until it is implemented. So...
Given that PC has been a colossal failure overall (which has to do with both the mechanics of the game mode and how horrible the lag is in PC matches) I feel at this point there probably isnt much reason to keep it around. I say remove passive isk generation, let PC fall apart and stay in shambles until they can revamp it with a 2.0 iteration. Its certainly a better alternative that allowing the broken game mode to inject so much isk into the economy while we all wait for a real fix.
You can still make money off of battles at least, so there is still a reason to play it occasionally.
I say remove biomass sale. Leave the biomass destruction at the number it is now and make clone packs free (or almost free). It destroys PC but leaves it from affecting dust until 2.0 comes out. yes people could actively farm districts but that requires effort at least.
exactly...if you remove passive ISK, you might as well just reinstate corp battles.
The only way removing ISK could make sense is if all of our gear somehow comes from the corps with land that manufactures them. But even then, you still need an open market for this to make sense.
So, when you buy a proto suit.....it only comes from a corp that manufactured it through their districts and sold it on the market. I don't know if CCP would have us manufacture these items, manually. So, if we were to manufacture them passively, ... we are back to the current system.
But honestly, I do like the fact this idea of corps earning ISK from selling items they made from materials off of their districts.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 23:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cenex Langly 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. Remove the passive ISK completely. Have districts act like POS's in EVE that generate different amounts/types of resources. These resources can be sold to industry people (in eve) that will build all the gear/modules/etc in DUST and sell it back. Thus you have an open market that uses generated ISK from PUB matches to determine price of the goods, that will determine the price of the resources generated from the districts. Corporations will have to sell the generated resources at prices that will reflect what the general public can afford for those goods. If no one can afford proto gear any more then resource values will drop, and when people can afford good expensive proto gear then prices will rise. Economy 101. As for that, people will fight over the districts but they won't go out of control over the passive ISK income (******* stupid imo). This is exactly the Moon-Goo exploit that happened a few years ago in EVE, trillions of ISK flooding the game... Absurd. Also having districts "mine planets out" of resources causing shifts in which districts hold which resources will mean that corporations will continually fight in regular (or irregular) intervals for the most valuable districts. (Resource shifting). As for attacking districts, they need to change the mechanic completely. It should be free to attack a district, but should require reinforcement windows to win-over a districts control. (which should require new modules like TCU's in EVE). DUST needs to reflect EVE sovereignty warfare if it is going to make any good PC mechanic. And for the love of all that is holy we need Corp Battle's back in game so we can practice against other corps, or duke it out with those that we absolutely loathe, like Escrow and DDB and, yes you, you quebec fools (I won't even capitalize your name).
It's what I suggested but you need an open market for this to be a reality.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 23:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Levithunder wrote:Kain Spero wrote:Void Echo wrote: The negative affects of these options is welcome because to the community, the coalition your involved in has negatively affected everyone else by denying them a chance to fight. So according to the community, anything that will remove DNS & N-F form PC will be greatly welcomed by all. (If you want to know where I though of this, look through the forums and see how much complaining small corps are doing).
The current land holders will adapt and overcome as they always have, so these changes wouldn't remove them from participating in PC. My concern is that this could reduce or eliminate corps, especially new ones, working towards getting involved in Planetary Conquest since the promise of wealth from passive ISK would be gone. Now what we are looking at is the incentive being that players work towards forming strong organizations to fight others in order to get ISK and that could very well be a positive direction. You have to understand that having land has the inherent negative of the game basically saying, "You will play at X time if someone chooses to attack you or you will loose this land." That negative is offset by the passive ISK and the corp programs like payroll and vehicle replacement that it can fund. As a result when you remove passive ISK entirely is could lead many corps not even trying to enter the PC arena because there is no way to set off the entry costs. I guess it comes down to whether or not the negatives of turning off passive are outweighed by it's benefits. Why don't you do what you want and don't bother the community you say you want OUR feedback but you come on the forums and tell us what your planing todo and won't stray from it. You just want the community to recognize what your doing. You say you want to let everyone fight but do you think making a clone pack cost from 36,000,000isk to 60,000,000isk is a good idea??? FYI bud your stepping 24,000,000isk in the wrong direction. NO small corp is willing to pay more than 10,000,000isk for a clone pack just to get there butt kicked in by ancient exiles or nyisn sain PERIOD.
increasing the clone pack cost and number of clones is a good idea. 120 clones definitely needs to be increased to at least 150..at most 200. But then you don't want people to just spam clone packs all the time. You want attacks to be strategic..instead of launching clone packs and hitting any district from anywhere. So, you have to increase the cost of the clone pack....$80M was a good number. I don't think it should be lower than that.
It used to cost $240M to takeover a hub. CCP got that part right
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 23:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
In fact, $80M is too low. The reason that CCP reduced the number of clones in the pack is because they wanted to limit the clone pack attacks. I agree with their intention but instead of nerfing the number of clones, they should have just raised the price. $120M for 200 clones sounds about right....$120M - $150M or so.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 00:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Levithunder wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:In fact, $80M is too low. The reason that CCP reduced the number of clones in the pack is because they wanted to limit the clone pack attacks. I agree with their intention but instead of nerfing the number of clones, they should have just raised the price. $120M for 200 clones sounds about right....$120M - $150M or so.
Well I guess it will be coming out of your wallet then not mine:)you realize that corp contracts in beta were 5-10 million right? And everyone still wants that game mode returned right? Soooooo yeah PC is gonna still be broken after fanfest in 2014.
corp contracts were whatever corps agreed to. PFB and HS fought for $300M, if I am correct.
it used to cost $160M or $300M to take over a district. And this was before there were multi-billion ISK corps.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2785
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 00:53:00 -
[7] - Quote
Levithunder wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Levithunder wrote:Kain Spero wrote:Void Echo wrote: The negative affects of these options is welcome because to the community, the coalition your involved in has negatively affected everyone else by denying them a chance to fight. So according to the community, anything that will remove DNS & N-F form PC will be greatly welcomed by all. (If you want to know where I though of this, look through the forums and see how much complaining small corps are doing).
The current land holders will adapt and overcome as they always have, so these changes wouldn't remove them from participating in PC. My concern is that this could reduce or eliminate corps, especially new ones, working towards getting involved in Planetary Conquest since the promise of wealth from passive ISK would be gone. Now what we are looking at is the incentive being that players work towards forming strong organizations to fight others in order to get ISK and that could very well be a positive direction. You have to understand that having land has the inherent negative of the game basically saying, "You will play at X time if someone chooses to attack you or you will loose this land." That negative is offset by the passive ISK and the corp programs like payroll and vehicle replacement that it can fund. As a result when you remove passive ISK entirely is could lead many corps not even trying to enter the PC arena because there is no way to set off the entry costs. I guess it comes down to whether or not the negatives of turning off passive are outweighed by it's benefits. Why don't you do what you want and don't bother the community you say you want OUR feedback but you come on the forums and tell us what your planing todo and won't stray from it. You just want the community to recognize what your doing. You say you want to let everyone fight but do you think making a clone pack cost from 36,000,000isk to 60,000,000isk is a good idea??? FYI bud your stepping 24,000,000isk in the wrong direction. NO small corp is willing to pay more than 10,000,000isk for a clone pack just to get there butt kicked in by ancient exiles or nyisn sain PERIOD. increasing the clone pack cost and number of clones is a good idea. 120 clones definitely needs to be increased to at least 150..at most 200. But then you don't want people to just spam clone packs all the time. You want attacks to be strategic..instead of launching clone packs and hitting any district from anywhere. So, you have to increase the cost of the clone pack....$80M was a good number. I don't think it should be lower than that. It used to cost $240M to takeover a hub. CCP got that part right btw you just don't want smaller corps attacking your districts more often :) join me in a pub match and you will taste my laser beams
smaller corps need to do what we had to do when pc first started. Ask most corps that were here when pc first started what they did to prepare for pc. We all played pubs and grind out ISK to fund our pc efforts.
If a corp can field a team and can defend their districts then they have more than enough people to grind out in pubs to save for pc efforts.
PS:: lasers are for those afraid to get their hands dirty fighting over an objective.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2786
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 01:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:In fact, $80M is too low. The reason that CCP reduced the number of clones in the pack is because they wanted to limit the clone pack attacks. I agree with their intention but instead of nerfing the number of clones, they should have just raised the price. $120M for 200 clones sounds about right....$120M - $150M or so.
I can't disagree more. PC would be more dead than it is now. If clone packs were cheap (10 mil) there would be fighting. You'd need to be in a god mode donut for 4 or 5 months to afford 120 mil clone packs.
reason CCP reduced the clone pack number to 120 from 150 (from what I could remember) is that they wanted to reduce the clone pack attack spam. If you reduce clone packs to $10M, everyone would be spamming clone pack attacks. It would be cheaper to launch attacks with clone packs instead of from your districts.
People shouldn't be launching attacks from across the universe.....it should be strategic and you should be invading a corp's territory instead of being able to hop over the wall
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2786
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 01:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around wanting to increase the cost of entry for a game mode that is suffering from a lack of participation.
It would be like a restaurant that is struggling increasing the cost of their entrees.
Forget about this blue donut for a sec.......lack of participation has to do with corps being afraid to attack or feeling that they aren't ready or good enough. Not sure if even we lowered clone pack attacks to $5M..would we get corps out of pubs and trying to get into pc.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2792
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 13:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around wanting to increasewst of entry for a game mode that is suffering from a lack of participation.
It would be like a restaurant that is struggling increasing the cost of their entrees. Forget about this blue donut for a sec.......lack of participation has to do with corps being afraid to attack or feeling that they aren't ready or good enough. Not sure if even we lowered clone pack attacks to $5M..would we get corps out of pubs and trying to get into pc. And why the **** do you think they are afraid to attack huh? If they knew their corp wallets wouldn't be nearly empty after a single attack like it is now (clone pack costs, vehicle and dropsuit reimbursements etc.) then smaller corps would probably be delighted to attack. But you assholes are locking all the smaller corps out.
they're afraid cause they're aware of who they can't beat.
Smaller corps weren't participating before this donut anyway. Only ones that tried were on PFC and they asked for protection.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
2794
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 20:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:I just can't wrap my head around wanting to increasewst of entry for a game mode that is suffering from a lack of participation.
It would be like a restaurant that is struggling increasing the cost of their entrees. Forget about this blue donut for a sec.......lack of participation has to do with corps being afraid to attack or feeling that they aren't ready or good enough. Not sure if even we lowered clone pack attacks to $5M..would we get corps out of pubs and trying to get into pc. And why the **** do you think they are afraid to attack huh? If they knew their corp wallets wouldn't be nearly empty after a single attack like it is now (clone pack costs, vehicle and dropsuit reimbursements etc.) then smaller corps would probably be delighted to attack. But you assholes are locking all the smaller corps out. they're afraid cause they're aware of who they can't beat. Smaller corps weren't participating before this donut anyway. Only ones that tried were on PFC and they asked for protection. Those PFC corps were even asking for protection from smaller corps instead of only from the bigger dogs. So, blame those smaller corps for locking other small corp's out and removing their ability to compete. Bullshit. Your argument makes 0 logical sense. What would the smaller corps have to be "afraid" of? Losing a battle? It's not the end of theworld to lose a battle. It is however the end of certain corps if they lose too many PC battles due to costs. Costs that you members of the blue sphincter don't need to care about since your chickenshit passive isk farming insures that every team in every PC battle you partake in can run full proto gear and lose it, without taking a financial hit because passive isk farming alone makes up for those losses in about an hour. It's like a billionaire joining a friday night poker game with a bunch of low income working men, and feel "gutsy" going all in on thefirst hand...
Losing ISK comes with losing a battle..it is what it is. A lot of the corps lost ISK when pc started. At the beginning of pc we had to fight to get districts since we didn't land grab. Clone pack cost $80M and it took $240M to take a hub or $160M to take a prod facility. If you lose any one of those battles, you had to start over. So, don't make excuses for why corps aren't launching. I'm not saying that a clone pack is adequate but when we started, clone packs were $80M. The risk of losing ISK is something we had to take if we wanted to pc. And that's what they need to do as well...period!
If they feel that they are going to lose, then they won't attack, which has always been the case.
weRideNDie2getha since 2010
|
|
|
|