| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
2786
   |
Posted - 2014.04.15 01:25:00 -
[121] - 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
|
medomai grey
WarRavens
League of Infamy
590
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 01:41:00 -
[122] - 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.
Districts should not reward players with direct ISK. ISK gain from districts should be indirect. For example, a district holder taxes an EVE player for mining. Or the district generate resources for manufacturing products for sale.
Medium frame EHP is not medium
|
anaboop
NECROM0NGERS
Caps and Mercs
35
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:04:00 -
[123] - Quote
Reset isk
Limit districts held per corp/alliance
No ringers outside of alliance
Alliances with to many districts must break from alliance In order to gain more disricts
Thats all that comes to mind atm lol
In the moment when I understand my enemy, well enough to defeat him, I also love him. And then I destroy him.
|
ROCKO THE HELLHOUND
Ultramarine Corp
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:16:00 -
[124] - Quote
hmm, so in case you would be too short of ideas and as reaction PC would get to dangerously near a complete pull from the game as from some suggested here, i would share the basics of my idea about how such a game-mode would at least work for everyone - a !!WARNING!! for the too young or too *******d to read a proper sized text, here it comes! :)
1st of:
only corporations with a set number of members that have been in the corp for a set time (like one or two months] and that have capped-out in their Active-SP-Cap the previous week should be legitimised to make any expansive moves on the PC-Map (attacks of districts on additional planets - making "PC" more planet-focused than district focused).
and the size of the pool of members that forfill those two requirements a corporation has, should determine in which scale this corporation can then attempt to expand/ the maximum number of planets they should be allowed to be active at all - which leads me to a closer look at my 2nd point:
with the forfillment of said requirements, the corps would gain the right to be present at set numbers of planets - free of restrictions to numbers of districts held (the lore explanation could also refer to chepness and un-problematicness of moving raw clone units around on planets, but the expenses and mortality rates related to the undertaking of lifting them into space and transporting them between solar-systems, star-clusters etc.).
when this rules would be active, my idea of PC would be played like this:
a corp with, for example 16 members meeting the requirements would be allowed to try their luck on no more than 2 planets,
a corp with, for example 24 members meeting the requirements would be allowed to try their luck on 3 planets - and so on, every set number of players more meeting those two requirements a corp has, an additional planet could be set foot on.
and if the number of players meeting the requirements falls under the requirements necessary to set foot on the number of planets they "are already on" by owning one or more districts on them, they would still stay fully legitimised for both sorts of actions on this planets: defenses of held districts and offensive moves for other districts on this planet.
just please not forget to then also include the option to abandon districts - and please give us finally free acces to "our land", warbarges etc. - it would feel so epic, it's what we want to feel less "lobby-shooter-inhabitant" and more "MMORPG-Universe-Inhabitant" - even if it's just for walking around and enjoying the view without null-cannons firing and stuff, or weapon-testing, training to move organised as squad
(with Friendly-Fire off versus instalations (wouldn't feel right otherwise) but on versus teammates),
dropship-piloting training, etc. .
also the specific charm of my solution lies in the fact that then the whole PC-Map would not be anymore just a play-garden for a few elite-corps to overrun and posses (as long as the shear number of planets versus legitimate players balance doesn't break too much, producing too big "planet shortage" in the process)
- but instead PC would become playground for every merc-corp that legitimised themselves by forfilling the set requirements to be of enough importance to set a foot into there - as it should have been since the beginning of PC i think - but at least some little ISK holding a district should generate, otherwise it would just turn into an enlarged Planetary Fight Club again - and i think this would be at best just the second best option. |
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
3354
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:18:00 -
[125] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote: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
I could totally buy that if PC was active.
Until they can tie the clones into the economy with an Eve/Dust connection CCP is going to need to adjust prices on clone packs to stimulate participation.
Level 3 Forum Warrior
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
3354
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:35:00 -
[126] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote: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.
People had pulled out of PC long before the donut formed. As more and more corps pulled out of PC it cranked up the level of difficulty. The mechanics and poor design of PC caused corps to pull out of PC very early on. If I had to guess many of them anticipated changes that never came.
But you are right, I'm not sure how many corps will line up to get their teeth kicked in. CCP should have pulled PC months ago and brought back corp battles while the new team develops PC 2.0. I think the learning curve is so steep for PC now that it will take quite a while for corps to get up to speed. It can't be stressed enough how big of a mistake it was to release PC without some low risk form of team deploy to practice for PC.
If pub payouts weren't so cheap I could side with you a little easier on this one. I hit up squad finder and run a few matches with random squads every time I play, I've yet to find a squad where people weren't talking about how low on ISK they are. I just don't believe the dynamics of the game right now support a rigid approach. Pubs are filled with solo playing, sniping, redline tanking, muder taxi blueberries and we want a vibrant PC.
Level 3 Forum Warrior
|
Poonmunch
Sanguis Defense Syndicate
838
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:39:00 -
[127] - 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.
You can get passive ISK from just holding land in PC?
Who knew?
I guess I don't do enough (any) to know how it all works.
Munch
Minmatar Patriot (Level 7)
Dedicated Sniper
|
Gaurdian Satyr
Glitched Connection
95
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:52:00 -
[128] - Quote
anaboop wrote:Reset isk
Limit districts held per corp/alliance
No ringers outside of alliance
Alliances with to many districts must break from alliance In order to gain more disricts
Thats all that comes to mind atm lol
^this also
Its a fail-safe to keep this monopoly crisis from happening again
-holds arms in O- throw it in the story basket bro
|
Deluxe Edition
TeamPlayers
Dirt Nap Squad.
747
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:55:00 -
[129] - Quote
If we remove passive isk from the game and increase clone biomass payouts from winning matches organizations such as DNS would be incentivized to just attack ourselves for profit. It would not only encourage district locking, but actually make it the best way for a corporation to receive a steady income. |
Cyrius Li-Moody
0uter.Heaven
4796
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 02:57:00 -
[130] - Quote
Deluxe Edition wrote:If we remove passive isk from the game and increase clone biomass payouts from winning matches organizations such as DNS would be incentivized to just attack ourselves for profit. It would not only encourage district locking, but actually make it the best way for a corporation to receive a steady income.
FRONT LINE FIT FIGHT
Youtuber. Your friendly neighborhood whiskey-fueled merc.
|
|
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
709
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 03:41:00 -
[131] - Quote
Deluxe Edition wrote:If we remove passive isk from the game and increase clone biomass payouts from winning matches organizations such as DNS would be incentivized to just attack ourselves for profit. It would not only encourage district locking, but actually make it the best way for a corporation to receive a steady income.
Non PC corporations need a way to make decent isk as well. I think Faction Warfare payouts should be drastically increased to around 1 - 2 million isk a match for winning and around 500k - a million for loosing. This would allow corporations not currently in PC to farm up a war chest to compete in PC.
Can always make it so you are unable to attack anyone in your alliance. Since you know, the only reason to do so would be to continue the abuse of a broken system.
I say wipe all isk made from PC and try this again in PC 2.0.
If that fails, wipe the isk again and try PC 3.0. Rinse and repeat till there is a working system. It's not like we have a merged economy to **** up. |
Ares 514
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
778
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 04:37:00 -
[132] - 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.
Did you see my post earlier saying 10 million for a clone pack? Once again we are on the same page.
...
|
Ludvig Enraga
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
1020
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 04:38:00 -
[133] - Quote
Jadd Hatchen 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. Kain, honestly the problem is that CCP has not made the EVE game more interdependent with DUST. I would be happy with taking districts resulting in no passive income for DUST directly, however there has to be a reason to make EVE pilot want the DUST districts to be taken. So basically, stuff has be be produced by the districts for the EVE pilots to want and use to make other things that will earn them a profit. Then the EVE pilots will hire DUST mercs for very handsome sums to take and hold districts. This will spur on an economy that is so far COMPLETELY VOID in the DUST universe. This is the thing you need to be concerned with as a CPM rep that hopes to ever represent me. Make there a REASON for the EVE pilots to want me to fight for them! Make there a reason for the EVE pilots to want to provide orbital support for the control of a district. Make there a reason that EVE pilot will fund entire DUST corps to further their empires in EVE. Do all of that and this too: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=137656&find=unread
Unfortunately right now the problem with this is that if you unlocked market and made valuable assets produced by districts it would lead to DNS hegemony ad perpetuum. Especially since there is really nothing Dust side to spend massive amounts of isk on.
First they must make good PC mechanics where there is an incentive to keep attacking other districts as opposed to holding hands. Also logistics should be complicated - the more districts you hold the tougher to defend (not just having more matches in a day), also the farther districts are apart the tougher to defend. An enemy should not know which districts are better protected but there is gotta be ways to find out (e.g espionage, or paying NPCs to get intel clues).
This is not rocket science, can be implemented with limited coding. Just takes a couple of talented guys with experience in tactical games (hell, table top games at that) to sit down with a piece of paper and hammer things out.
PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8.
That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
|
Ludvig Enraga
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
1020
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 05:26:00 -
[134] - 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.
This is my problem with Kain he starts threads 'to stimulate public discussion' then turns around and pushes his agenda. CPM should be a conduit for the community, not a bunch of school boys on a power trip. It's a tough and selfless job but it has to be done right to have credibility.
PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8.
That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
916
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 07:33:00 -
[135] - Quote
So you have expressed your thoughts on this earlier, but still you let this crap happen for nearly 9 months...
This leads me to the assumption that the CPM was not able or willing to change this. And If I remember correctly you had some chances to do so as CCP has already overhauled PC twice.
In the case you were not willing to change the passive ISK the question is why did you change your opinion as the possible exploit was known for the whole time?
In the case you were not able or empowered to change things what happened all of a sudden that you are now empowered to do so?
The CPM has already proven that they have influence on what CCP does, the question for me is simple why did you not use your influence to save CCP most anticipated game mode before it was broken beyond repair?
The thing is no matter what CCP will do the coprs currently holding molden heath have enough resources to deny any new corp access to PC.
And to make things even worse your suggestions would further cater them.
|
jerrmy12 kahoalii
1006
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 07:38:00 -
[136] - 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.
the losers need at least 500k or 1 mil or no one will fight, say do well but lose by 1 clone, ragequit
Closed beta vet
Tears, sweet delicious tears
|
Supacharjed
Alpha Response Command
57
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 07:45:00 -
[137] - Quote
I would fight to hold land, just for the sake of holding land.
Diehard Commandbro.
Part Time Ninja Turtle
Full Time Badass.
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2859
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 08:02:00 -
[138] - Quote
Look, forget any notion of "saving PC1.0". It's a lost cause and has been for many months. The only aim now should just to be to make it as much fun as it can be until it's completely gotten rid of. PC1.0 is no fun as it is now because everyone in there is just clamming up and holding onto their isk printers rather than caring about fighting.
Forget about incentives, just make it fun. Get rid of passive isk entirely and make the clones cheap to buy and there will be lots of attacks. If people don't want to bother defending their land, someone else will do it because some (I'd wager a lot) just want to have good fights and you can't get them from pubs or FW.
PC1.0 is dead. There is no reason for anyone to try to get into it because they know that they won't stand a chance. People don't want to get into PC right now even though everyone knows it's free isk if you can do it. There is no bigger incentive available and people still don't want to do it. There is no way you can do anything to incentivise them more, so stop trying. Take down the barriers to entry - drastically lower the clone pack costs.
You don't need to increase the biomass payout at all. Turn off passive isk and people will fight because there's nothing else to do. At least there'll be fights! If people want to self-attack to ensure they get isk, let them - they won't be able to do this on dozens of districts all at the same time and it'll leave the others open for other corps. This scenario is infinitely more preferable to the current corpse of PC1.0 that is withering away.
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Jebus McKing
334
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 08:35:00 -
[139] - 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?
There is money gained from holding a district? Never got paid. Still had fun every once in a while.
Good fights > money
@JebusMcKing // TIERICIDE, just do it, CCP.
ò_Ô
|
Leonid Tybalt
Inner.Hell
462
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 11:21:00 -
[140] - Quote
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. |
|
|
Hansei Kaizen
The Jackson Five
136
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 11:47:00 -
[141] - Quote
Gaurdian Satyr wrote:anaboop wrote:Reset isk
Limit districts held per corp/alliance
No ringers outside of alliance
Alliances with to many districts must break from alliance In order to gain more disricts
Thats all that comes to mind atm lol
^this also Its a fail-safe to keep this monopoly crisis from happening again
I think this is the only option, too. How do you keep a real-life monopoly from forming? IRL it is difficult, because you cant control and have insight into everything that is happening. But in a game you can do this. You can implement a parameter "district ownership limitations per corporation per alliance", set it to "n" and see if it works.
Whats the alternative? Nullify the benefits from owning a district, or, to more effect, make it cost something to own a district? Or you subsidize the ones you want to have empowered (the not district holding corps). Like give them extra players on the battlefield, or give them free orbitals, or many many bonus clones for attacking? Because yeah, the problem is that the enemy is waay too far up the power level (time on hand, SP, ISK, teamwork, etc.), to have anyone challenging them effectively.
Or you just let them be and see if the empire crumbles again. Could work, might not. Still the gamemode would be sealed from outsiders.
The answer to your complaint is PvE. Always.
NPE status: (Gò»°Gûí°n+ëGò»n+¦ Gö+GöüGö+
Casual solo
|
Django Quik
Dust2Dust.
2860
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 12:01:00 -
[142] - Quote
Can we please try to keep this discussion on topic - that is:
Would you play PC if there were no passive isk?
This is not about "what can be done to save PC1.0". This is not "what should be done for PC2.0". This is not "what else could be done for PC1.0".
Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot
Scout community is the nuts
|
Tesfa Alem
Death by Disassociation
Top Men.
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 12:15:00 -
[143] - 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.
What would make PC worth anything is being able to visit the district that you own. FCs and higher can take people down for a visit. Also your district should be open to raids from other players who buy a cheap clone pack (say 50 clones or less) at anytime. Auto defense systems purchased by the land owner sch a drones and installations in addition to who ever may be available in the corp to defend that district. Raiders win, you lose clones and cash. Defenders win and all of the war costs are reimbursed.
PC needs to be dynamic. It needs to be more exiting than merely waking up at 4 in the morning to proto stomp or be protostomped in a skirmish.
Basically it needs to be fun. Not a full time job.
Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries
Dirt Nap Squad.
2792
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 13:47:00 -
[144] - 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
|
Gregor stormwalker
Seraphim Auxiliaries
74
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 13:47:00 -
[145] - Quote
Ok IMO we need PC 2.0 with a free market set-up something smiler to fox Gaden has talked about, also PVE as an anti monopoly mechanic by which I mean your pc districts are randomly attacked by drones with the chances of a district being attack increasing with the ownership of more districts
That being said with only number changes its going to be hard to fix, there have been lots of idea so here's one I did not see
how about changing the number of clones a district can hold and generates
current
production: 80/100
capacity: 300/450
proposed
production: 40/60
capacity: 250/350
I personally would also remove the ability for corps with more than say 10 districts from buying clone packs (yes I know shadow/throw away corps but its worth a try)
the idea is reducing the amount of passive isk by reducing clone production
while also reducing the number of attacks required to take a district, the clone pack limit means if you want to be a big district owner you are going to have to work harder to keep more than 10.
as I said what we really need is a complete rework but in the absence of that something like this might work
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
3360
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:46:00 -
[146] - Quote
Django Quik wrote:Can we please try to keep this discussion on topic - that is:
Would you play PC if there were no passive isk?
This is not about "what can be done to save PC1.0". This is not "what should be done for PC2.0". This is not "what else could be done for PC1.0".
You cant answer that question alone
The problem with PC runs alot deeper than just passive ISK
It needs a complete overhaul and starting from scratch
To obtain the blue donut should be hard as hell but if no one is intrested in PC like it is now then it will be easier
No one gives a **** about PC anymore, it doesnt really offer anything or mean anything |
lDocHollidayl
Ancient Exiles.
Dirt Nap Squad.
536
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 14:57:00 -
[147] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Kain Spero wrote: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. It's funny how the figurehead of the most notorious district locking group in Molden Heath starts talking about having to "fight" for your land.  You do realize that kane runs ERA right? Not NS or AE or the other BIG corps at the time. The only corp that was actually attacking districts during the lock out? ERA historyYou kids really believe whatever you make up in your head?
OH MY... eh the puppet is back.
Every corp in PC abused locking save 1 or 2 that were slaughtered quickly...and AE who did it very last. Your strings were locking early and often. |
Free Beers
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
2326
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:29:00 -
[148] - Quote
lDocHollidayl wrote:Free Beers wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Kain Spero wrote: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. It's funny how the figurehead of the most notorious district locking group in Molden Heath starts talking about having to "fight" for your land. You do realize that kane runs ERA right? Not NS or AE or the other BIG corps at the time. The only corp that was actually attacking districts during the lock out? ERA historyYou kids really believe whatever you make up in your head? OH MY... eh the puppet is back. Every corp in PC abused locking save 1 or 2 that were slaughtered quickly...and AE who did it very last. Your strings were locking early and often.
When ERA started with 3 districts they were locked up tight back when it started back in january. The continued to lock their districts like everyone else. I dont see how that makes kane the leader of the most notorious district locking group in Molden Heath. Pretty sure NS and AE. had quite a few more districts that where locked under their belt and farmed a lot more isk than ERA. Which would make them a bit more notorious to me. Thats just me and everyone can have their opinion regardless how poor it is.
I just not a fan of hypocrites and tell it like it is Doc. You, my friend are just a bitter kane hater that is just seeing what he wants to see in my words.
Every mercs life ends the same way. It is only the details of how he lived and died that distinguishes one from another
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2533
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:35:00 -
[149] - Quote
Hansei Kaizen wrote:Gaurdian Satyr wrote:anaboop wrote:Reset isk
Limit districts held per corp/alliance
No ringers outside of alliance
Alliances with to many districts must break from alliance In order to gain more disricts
Thats all that comes to mind atm lol
^this also Its a fail-safe to keep this monopoly crisis from happening again I think this is the only option, too. How do you keep a real-life monopoly from forming? IRL it is difficult, because you cant control and have insight into everything that is happening. But in a game you can do this. You can implement a parameter "district ownership limitations per corporation per alliance", set it to "n" and see if it works. Whats the alternative? Nullify the benefits from owning a district, or, to more effect, make it cost something to own a district? Or you subsidize the ones you want to have empowered (the not district holding corps). Like give them extra players on the battlefield, or give them free orbitals, or many many bonus clones for attacking? Because yeah, the problem is that the enemy is waay too far up the power level (time on hand, SP, ISK, teamwork, etc.), to have anyone challenging them effectively. Or you just let them be and see if the empire crumbles again. Could work, might not. Still the gamemode would be sealed from outsiders.
This is only needed in current iterations of PC once EvE players have intrest in holding land in DUST the persistent economy will even everything out.
Also to help reduce monopolisation
1) Increase Districts per planet, the more districts there are the harder it is to own a majority share.
2) No inter-alliance attacks, period
3) Make interplanetary attacks require traversal of a Warbarge, this will happen 6 hours before a ground attack, these warbarges can be attacked to reduce the amount of clones available to attackers
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
lDocHollidayl
Ancient Exiles.
Dirt Nap Squad.
536
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 17:00:00 -
[150] - Quote
Free Beers wrote:lDocHollidayl wrote:Free Beers wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Kain Spero wrote: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. It's funny how the figurehead of the most notorious district locking group in Molden Heath starts talking about having to "fight" for your land. You do realize that kane runs ERA right? Not NS or AE or the other BIG corps at the time. The only corp that was actually attacking districts during the lock out? ERA historyYou kids really believe whatever you make up in your head? OH MY... eh the puppet is back. Every corp in PC abused locking save 1 or 2 that were slaughtered quickly...and AE who did it very last. Your strings were locking early and often. When ERA started with 3 districts they were locked up tight back when it started back in january. The continued to lock their districts like everyone else. I dont see how that makes kane the leader of the most notorious district locking group in Molden Heath. Pretty sure NS and AE. had quite a few more districts that where locked under their belt and farmed a lot more isk than ERA. Which would make them a bit more notorious to me. Thats just me and everyone can have their opinion regardless how poor it is. I just not a fan of hypocrites and tell it like it is Doc. You, my friend are just a bitter kane hater that is just seeing what he wants to see in my words.
You claimed ERA fought..in fact you said the only corp that attacked during lock out? Your statement is just false. Your propaganda was just called out. Nothing more or less here. I know truths are a tricky subject on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |