| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hynox Xitio
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1956
   |
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:01:00 -
[331] - Quote
"This week on Biomassed, Jaysyn talks about vehicles, and Hynox's obsession with bear traps."
The horror! The horror!
( -íº -£-û -íº)
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5816
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:56:00 -
[332] - Quote
Here is my take on Timers, copied from this post.
Timers
Each District has a timer which can be adjusted by the District owner. The district can be Raided or Attacked during a 6 hour window (3 hours on either side of the timer). If the District is attacked, the second phase of the attack will start 24 hours after the attack was initiated, provided the attack was successful. Phase 3 will start 24 hours after Phase 2 started, provided the attacker won Phase 2.
- This allows the defending Corp to set the attack window for a time when their Corp is likely to have people on to mount a defense.
- It allows the attackers to set the actual time of the attack.
- It allows both sides to know exactly when Phase 2 and Phase 3 will start, so that they can prepare.
When changing a timer, the timer can only be set to a time between the current time and the currently set timer. In other words you cannot extend the time before your district becomes vulnerable again, only shorten it. If you set it to within 3 hours of the current time, the district becomes vulnerable to attack immediately.
(The suggestion I based the attack windows on had them at 6 hours, but I would be open to shortening it to 4 hours.)
As far as I am concerned, if a Japanese Corp can take a district from an American Corp and change the timer, then an American or European Corp should be able to alarm-clock for a few days to take it back and change the timer. But I think that the corp that Conquers a district should be able to set the timer immediately without interfering with any other logistical activity. Lockouts on one aspect of logistics should not effect any other aspect of logistics. The 6 hour attack window gives the Attacking Corp more flexibility when fighting a Corp from another time zone, and the 24 hour timer gives both Corps a chance to get organized and make sure they can get their best team together for a good fight.
In a system of live attacks, the Defenders will mostly not show up, so you can't base a system on live attacks only or you have no persistence. My system allows the attackers to choose the exact time of the attack, ensures attacks happen when the defending Corp is likely to be on, and gives both sides time to prepare. Defenders have a reason to show up for the initial (live) attack, but they are not unduly penalized if they can't get enough people on such short notice.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5306
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:58:00 -
[333] - Quote
Attack windows four or six hours wide is absolutely crazy, IMHO. It gates out any corp that doesn't have a full team available all evening long.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1459
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 20:39:00 -
[334] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Window timers are bad, but instead they should set default timers that are locked to districts based upon player participation in the game from throughout the world. Can you expand on this suggestion a bit more? Are you talking about a system which reacts to ongoing participation at different times of day, or are you talking about hard coding district timers based on one moment in the history of the game?
Fox,
Thor isn't offering that as a suggestion....he's paraphrasing Soraaya and explaining that he disagrees with Soraya's idea.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1459
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 20:52:00 -
[335] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Attack windows four or six hours wide is absolutely crazy, IMHO. It gates out any corp that doesn't have a full team available all evening long.
I originally thought 6hrs would work (fits nicely into a 24hr block) but I think bringing ti down to 4hrs would work fine.
Without getting into a major discussion on the forum since i'm drive-by posting is that that no matter the advantages are too one-sided for the defender if the attacker can't exert some control over the attack timing.
The window system gives some level of parity to both the attacker and defender and that is ultimately a good thing.
The other point I would make is that all these proposals need to be framed from multiple perspectives... attacker vs defender and single district ownership vs multiple district ownership. Example, if you can select the window to open your district to attack you put in your 3 or 4 districts in the same timezone and then you have your best capability levied against the highest period of potential activity. It also allows for corps to coordinate small window attacks to force you to use multiple teams or put some mercenary corps on retainer.
For every area you say that something is "bad" (and I agree from your personal perspective and experience it might very well have been) there are at least an equal number of folks that had a very opposite experience and perspective that is just as valid. If you or they anchor to that experience and won't consider other people have valid but different perspectives then no one will convince anyone of anything.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5308
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 21:19:00 -
[336] - Quote
Jay, I understand you feel that the advantages are too one-sided for the defender, but the ideas you're supporting are entirely in favor of the attacker to the extreme degree that many defenders will be excluded from the game mode out of hand. And timing has to be in the hands of the defender unless you just want lots of no-show matches as the way to turn over districts. It's poor game design.
If anything, I would rather give the attackers an advantage in a different way, like an in-match advantage. (I would really love to start defenders in the city but give attackers a huge benefit like being the only side that gets vehicles or a much larger MCC to burn through or something.)
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2754
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 23:04:00 -
[337] - Quote
If there is a window, it should not be possible to slowly migrate the time over several battles. E.g. Say the window is from 1:00 to 5:00. It should not be possible to attack at 4:30, then 8:00 the following day, then 11:30 the next day, etc.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5732
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 01:44:00 -
[338] - Quote
Fox Gaden wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Window timers are bad, but instead they should set default timers that are locked to districts based upon player participation in the game from throughout the world. Can you expand on this suggestion a bit more? Are you talking about a system which reacts to ongoing participation at different times of day, or are you talking about hard coding district timers based on one moment in the history of the game?
I don't like the 24 hour wait for battles. I have been talking about window timers for over a year. Nothing fancy, I've liked other people's ideas for getting there.
Basically upgradable timer windows. Invest in smaller windows, but within that window you are open for business. Battles spin up upon attack within 30-60 minutes.
To me the spontaneity and persistence is the only thing that can prevent small elite groups from dominating huge swaths of land. Nothing crazy, but if you can't have 16 dudes available during a two to four hour window then you won't be holding many districts.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5732
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 01:46:00 -
[339] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Window timers are bad, but instead they should set default timers that are locked to districts based upon player participation in the game from throughout the world. Can you expand on this suggestion a bit more? Are you talking about a system which reacts to ongoing participation at different times of day, or are you talking about hard coding district timers based on one moment in the history of the game? Fox, Thor isn't offering that as a suggestion....he's paraphrasing Soraaya and explaining that he disagrees with Soraya's idea.
Yeah Zel was talking about default timers or whatever. I hope he's had time to think on that because it was a pretty bad idea.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5329
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 04:34:00 -
[340] - Quote
Bad ideas, Thor, are ones without reason. Like windows, and removing 24 hour warnings, because you "like" the idea. Not because it creates a good game. That is what you are missing when you evaluate ideas. You're not realizing that limitations are an inherently key part of creating a good game.
I can tell you why fixed timers will make the game better. With clear logical reasoning. You have not done so for your view, because you do not understand the inherent problems, much less the required solutions.
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Nothing crazy, but if you can't have 16 dudes available during a two to four hour window then you won't be holding many districts.
Let me correct that. By "won't be holding many districts", you mean "won't be holding any districts". You are intending to gate out any corps that are not as large as yours. And cutting a huge percentage of the community out of your version of PC.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
|
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1459
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 05:04:00 -
[341] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Jay, I understand you feel that the advantages are too one-sided for the defender, but the ideas you're supporting are entirely in favor of the attacker to the extreme degree that many defenders will be excluded from the game mode out of hand. And timing has to be in the hands of the defender unless you just want lots of no-show matches as the way to turn over districts. It's poor game design.
If anything, I would rather give the attackers an advantage in a different way, like an in-match advantage. (I would really love to start defenders in the city but give attackers a huge benefit like being the only side that gets vehicles or a much larger MCC to burn through or something.)
Ok, I'll take a page from your book. What empirical data can you show that demonstrates the idea I've set forth does the following:
a) Are entirely in favor of the attacker. Note that the defender selects the window of time and can select their prime activity window to cover.
b) Are 'extreme'. Particular in relation to some of the other proposals vs what we have now.
Additionally, I have had a singularly different experience in PC matches reference "no show" matches than you have apparently. If the corp in question only has one district and can barely field a full 16 pax team you're arguement may have some anecdotal merit (not sure, haven't been in that specific position). You'll also note that the original discussion indicated that while the attacker could pick exact time the window and presumably in the defendors primetime the defender is notificed well in advance that an attack is in-bound in the defenders selected "defense window".
You seem to feel that no corp will be able deal with this situation and i have absolutely 100% a different experience in this as do several others that you seem to dismiss out of hand. At some point, the system must be agnostic of the internal organization of corps and they will need to adapt to the system. Small elite corps, mid-size casuals, and large scale corps with acitvites across the band all will need to adapt to whatever PC is like. That system doesn't need to be one that exclusively caters to the defending party as does the current system.
You have just brought to the table in-match direct advantages and I applaud your thought process on that I think some of the areas that you noted (i.e. defenders not being able to call in vehicles) is far to dramatic of a step without significantly more detail.
You've given several examples of not being able to have enough key personnel in corp to help run or cover districts if an attack comes thus forcing either a very small cadre to "no life" or defenders simply giving up and not defending. If a corp owns multiple districts they could very easily group several defense windows together and they would have a ready made PC fest...but with noticably less advantage than what they would have under our current system.
Additionally, most of the negative perspective you describe is up till now has purely from the defending position and how inconvienent it would be for the defender. The simple counter-point to that is that if the defender were to hold ALL the advantage in initiative it would be at least as frictious for the attacking party as you describe the proposed timer window for the defender; that sounds like "bad game design" to me.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5338
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 14:57:00 -
[342] - Quote
Again, your system assumes that most corps can have a full team available or can assemble one across a four hour window. I contest that it is not. The system should not be designed to make everyone Molon Labe. I want people to be able to participate no matter how they organize their corporation.
And the problem is, that with the existing system, those PC organizers, Jaysyn, have to no life to protect a small handful of districts already. You're suggesting they should need to no life to hold just one district. I contend that holding a single district should be a relatively stress-free affair.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5735
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:44:00 -
[343] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Again, your system assumes that most corps can have a full team available or can assemble one across a four hour window. I contest that it is not. The system should not be designed to make everyone Molon Labe. I want people to be able to participate no matter how they organize their corporation.
And the problem is, that with the existing system, those PC organizers, Jaysyn, have to no life to protect a small handful of districts already. You're suggesting they should need to no life to hold just one district. I contend that holding a single district should be a relatively stress-free affair.
Molon would be set up pretty well to defend quite a few districts with window timers based on our activity. But it would be because we have numbers of active players. You'd have plenty of corporations that would start to recruit and grow their numbers because it would mean something. It wouldn't be about maintaining activity, you'd be recruiting and growing for tactical purposes.
That's what we want to see in Dust. It's better if you have 20 big corporations fighting in Molden Heath than having 2-3 small elite corps "allowing" other corporations to fight in Molden Heath.
When you have to dig down to the 3rd and 4th teams at times, whether it be for raiding or defending against raids, or whatever is proposed that's where you get the additional FC's trained up, additional squad leaders stepping up, etc. Like people said in the podcast, the logistical UI isn't there to support this and is very much needed to allow for multiple teams to be deployed by a corporation.
But you have to understand that Molon has been here the entire time, I think only KEQ has been on the map as consistently as we have. In 20 months or so of PC, we've only been off the map for a matter of days. My recommendations are not for the betterment of Molon, I've spent more than $1500 on this game, I love it. I want the game to be better. I want accessibility for the majority of Dust so they can see Dust's greatest asset which is teamplay.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5735
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:51:00 -
[344] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Again, your system assumes that most corps can have a full team available or can assemble one across a four hour window. I contest that it is not. The system should not be designed to make everyone Molon Labe. I want people to be able to participate no matter how they organize their corporation.
And the problem is, that with the existing system, those PC organizers, Jaysyn, have to no life to protect a small handful of districts already. You're suggesting they should need to no life to hold just one district. I contend that holding a single district should be a relatively stress-free affair.
So you want corporations that remain small to be able to maintain a strong presence in Molden Heath? How has that worked out for Planetary Conquest up to this point?
If you want to have a corporation that is small and participate in PC you should either be required to be very, very good and/or operate as a mercenary corporation. OR perhaps all you do is participate in raids depending on how they are set up (or set up at all).
If you go through all the trouble of redoing PC, but make it so small corporations are able to make 24-48 hour arrangements it only keeps the "who are the best 16 I can hire for this match" thing going. Accessibility for the masses isn't possible if district flips and defenses end up being fielded by TP, OH, FA, AE, etc. And that's what the 24 hour timer provides, it's an exercise in who has the best batphone.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1459
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 16:57:00 -
[345] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Again, your system assumes that most corps can have a full team available or can assemble one across a four hour window. I contest that it is not. The system should not be designed to make everyone Molon Labe. I want people to be able to participate no matter how they organize their corporation.
And the problem is, that with the existing system, those PC organizers, Jaysyn, have to no life to protect a small handful of districts already. You're suggesting they should need to no life to hold just one district. I contend that holding a single district should be a relatively stress-free affair.
I'm not suggesting anyone no-life. I'm suggesting that groups with efficient and effective organizations that actively identify and develop leaders will, and should, be rewarded. If corps only have 1 or 2 guys that can be relied on to run all the tactical organization they need to do some internal work to have more capability (notice I didn't say more people) to help decentralize the workload and responsibility. Or you could have some guys that throughly enjoy being an organizing honcho and they can go all in for you. Or you have a mix of the two which is a more likely scenario.
I would contend that participating in PC should be very accessible and relatively stress free..HOLDING or GAINING a district is an entirely different story and you should have to work and organize to gain the benefits or protect them.
I'm also not looking to make everyone like Molon Labe, or OSG, or Teamplayers, or FA. I'm looking looking to ensure access to the game mode for those that choose to build their corps with that in mind. I'm not interested at all in ensuring everyone gets a blue ribbon in the form of a district for participating - that you have to earn and keep earning to retain it.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5735
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:05:00 -
[346] - Quote
Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Again, your system assumes that most corps can have a full team available or can assemble one across a four hour window. I contest that it is not. The system should not be designed to make everyone Molon Labe. I want people to be able to participate no matter how they organize their corporation.
And the problem is, that with the existing system, those PC organizers, Jaysyn, have to no life to protect a small handful of districts already. You're suggesting they should need to no life to hold just one district. I contend that holding a single district should be a relatively stress-free affair. I'm not suggesting anyone no-life. I'm suggesting that groups with efficient and effect organization that actively identify and develop leaders will, and should, have be rewarded. If corps only have 1 or 2 guys that can be relied on to run all the tactical organization they need to do some internal work to have more capability (notice I didn't say more people) to help decentralize the workload and responsibility. Or you could have some guys that throughly enjoy being a the organizing honcho and they can go all in for you. Or you have a mix of the two wih is a more likely scenario. I would contend that participating in PC should be very accessible and relatively stress free..HOLDING or GAINING a district is an entirely different story and you should have to work and organize to gain the benefits or protect them. I'm also not looking to make everyone like Molon Labe, or OSG, or Teamplayers, or FA. I'm looking looking to ensure access to the game mode for those that choose to build their corps with that in mind. I'm not interested at all in ensuring everyone gets a blue ribbon in the form of a district for participating - that you have to earn and keep earning to retain it.
The simple matter of FACT for PC. For people to break in at this stage it will be based on zerg tactics. It has to be or they simply won't break through.
Random Gunz, DMG, and a handful of others are grass roots organizations that weren't OG PC corps or a mish/mash of old PC corps that have merged. They are the only ones I know of that can field a team of 16 and beat anyone of note.
If you don't give new to PC players and teams some way to pit themselves against the 3rd or 4th teams of certain corps or alliances then they have NO chance. You are talking about a couple hundred players for the most part that have nearly two years of experience and huge pools of SP and ISK.
I'm for the Davids and not the Goliath. It's just that what Soraya thinks he's suggesting to help smaller, newer corps is only going to ensure they NEVER sniff success in PC.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5735
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:14:00 -
[347] - Quote
And like everyone else in the podcast but Soraya agreed, something like this lowers the stakes a bit for individual matches. If you decided you wanted to hold more land, you'd have to allow more people inside the circle of trust to manage it. So the "no life" aspect of PC would be lower, not higher.
As an aside, this opens up a lot of the gameplay that people have been wanting to see. The backstabbing, the thefts, the awoxing. Alts moving up the ladder quickly in organizations to become high level moles. All this stuff is possible IF more people are required to make the PC operations go.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5348
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:25:00 -
[348] - Quote
I'm sure you feel that way, Thor. Support your donut. :)
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5735
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 17:47:00 -
[349] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:I'm sure you feel that way, Thor. Support your donut. :)
Yeah, the donut that enforced a last district rule, gave away districts, etc. Tso's did everything it could to help keep PC content going. We even talked about bringing back the Fight Club, but it was decided by all (PC powers including but not limited to Tso's) that the last district rule provided enough of a life vest.
You bring back any sort of scenario where districts make corporations ISK and all the things that plagued PC will come right back. People claim the locking and all those things are what hurt PC. But that wasn't it at all. The locking grew into what it was because most organizations simply can't contend with the few small elite groups of players when they come knocking. When you get down to it, the mechanics and the 16 v 16 allow for small elite groups to dominate.
If you keep the current timers the way they are and add incentive then you will get the best 16 that ISK can pay for in most fights. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a matter of looking at what has happened in PC throughout it's history.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5348
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 18:35:00 -
[350] - Quote
My point with that last comment, is you can absolutely guarantee I am going to view your feedback that corps should need more people to be in PC in light of the fact that you CEO a 662 person corp in the largest alliance in the game.
You are extremely biased.
If PC remains only playable by a small percentage of players, it will be a failure. Regardless of whether or not it suddenly becomes a different small percentage because it shifted entirely from small teams to super corps. We need more balance than your proposal enables.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
|
|
Thor Odinson42
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
5744
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:59:00 -
[351] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:My point with that last comment, is you can absolutely guarantee I am going to view your feedback that corps should need more people to be in PC in light of the fact that you CEO a 662 person corp in the largest alliance in the game.
You are extremely biased.
If PC remains only playable by a small percentage of players, it will be a failure. Regardless of whether or not it suddenly becomes a different small percentage because it shifted entirely from small teams to super corps. We need more balance than your proposal enables.
It's like talking to a wall.
We are no bigger than any corp that's active in PC right now activity wise. We just don't boot people after a month of inactivity. A corp like Titans of Pheonix that was a merger of several PC corps has many more teams of experienced PC players than we do. There are maybe 20-30 active players in ML that regularly participate in PC.
As far as the alliance it should be pretty clear that while there are large numbers (ROFL actually has more) but there isn't a ton of participation PC wise.
For the 30th time, this isn't about my corp or my alliance. I'll give you a scenario that plays out with these timers:
The Bears attack the Cowboys on consecutive days and win matches. On the third day they have the opportunity to take the district. The war overall has been going well for the Cowboys' alliance and their premier team has successfully defended all attempted alliance district flips. The battle for the Cowboys' district is in 24 hours. The Cowboys' CEO lets his alliance know that he's going to need the A-Team to keep his district from getting flipped.
The Bears are fired up, they've been working for months preparing for this war. They've used ringers as little as possible while honing their strategies and recruiting for the roles to fill their gaps. They are a proud group and they know what they will be facing. When the battle comes they are facing a "who's who" all-star team of Dust and they lose badly. The Cowboys successfully defend their district!
You can change the scenarios for any critical battle and plug in the theme of the story above. The timers aren't providing corporations time to get their own forces organized, it ends up being TWO ringer forces fighting each other in many cases.
I wish we could get past the accusations that I'm trying to better my corporation with these recommendations and discuss how YOU perceive the timers and how they've benefited newer, smaller corporations throughout the history of PC up to this point.
Low payouts ensure that only the best are running decent gear.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5855
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:14:00 -
[352] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:Fox Gaden wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Window timers are bad, but instead they should set default timers that are locked to districts based upon player participation in the game from throughout the world. Can you expand on this suggestion a bit more? Are you talking about a system which reacts to ongoing participation at different times of day, or are you talking about hard coding district timers based on one moment in the history of the game? I don't like the 24 hour wait for battles. I have been talking about window timers for over a year. Nothing fancy, I've liked other people's ideas for getting there. Basically upgradable timer windows. Invest in smaller windows, but within that window you are open for business. Battles spin up upon attack within 30-60 minutes. To me the spontaneity and persistence is the only thing that can prevent small elite groups from dominating huge swaths of land. Nothing crazy, but if you can't have 16 dudes available during a two to four hour window then you won't be holding many districts.
I feel that without the 24 hour timer we will only have 4 or 5 Corps that will be big enough to consistently field a 16 man team when they are attacked.
With my proposal, three different Corps can coordinate to attack districts belonging to a large Corp at the exact same time, forcing the large Corp to field 3 teams, rather than using one team do defend at 3 different times.
The 24 hour lead time gives a corp time to arrange for ringers if they are not big enough to field 3 PC teams at the same time.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5855
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:27:00 -
[353] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:Attack windows four or six hours wide is absolutely crazy, IMHO. It gates out any corp that doesn't have a full team available all evening long.
That is why I set it up so it is not mandatory for the defenders to mount a successful defense to the first attack. They would get 24 hours to prepare for phase 2.
I agree that a 6 hour window seems a bit too wide. I was thinking 4 hours would be better, but wanted to wait to see the thoughts of the people who were proposing the 6 hour window to see if there was a reason for it to be so long.
I wanted to have Raids and the first (live) phase of Attacks setup so that they would be an annoyance and a setback to a District owner, but not so much that they would have to have there A-Team on standby every night. I wanted to have a successful defense of a District in the first phase, or defense against a Raid, a bonus, rather than a mandatory part of PC. I also wanted to set the stakes so that it would encourage anyone who happened to be on, particularly people not yet good enough for the PC team, to take a shot at fighting off the PC level attackers.
I also suggested an ability to open the defense of districts from live attacks to the public queue.
(See Public Defence Contracts at the bottom of this post.)
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5858
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:55:00 -
[354] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:That's what we want to see in Dust. It's better if you have 20 big corporations fighting in Molden Heath than having 2-3 small elite corps "allowing" other corporations to fight in Molden Heath.
With no times we would be looking at no more than 5 Corporations max that would be able to participate in PC. Those corporations would grow, and no other Corporations would have the numbers to participate.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5858
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:02:00 -
[355] - Quote
Thor Odinson42 wrote:The simple matter of FACT for PC. For people to break in at this stage it will be based on zerg tactics. It has to be or they simply won't break through.
Random Gunz, DMG, and a handful of others are grass roots organizations that weren't OG PC corps or a mish/mash of old PC corps that have merged. They are the only ones I know of that can field a team of 16 and beat anyone of note.
If you don't give new to PC players and teams some way to pit themselves against the 3rd or 4th teams of certain corps or alliances then they have NO chance. You are talking about a couple hundred players for the most part that have nearly two years of experience and huge pools of SP and ISK.
I'm for the Davids and not the Goliath. It's just that what Soraya thinks he's suggesting to help smaller, newer corps is only going to ensure they NEVER sniff success in PC.
The CEO of DMG is a friend of mine, and I saw how hard he had to work to get his Corp PC ready. I totally agree that the current system makes it difficult for corps to break into PC. But your suggestion would have the same result, of making it almost impossible for the new Corp on the block to break into PC.
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5859
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:20:00 -
[356] - Quote
My Proposal is clearly a compromise between the Soraya Xel position and the Jaysyn Larrisen position.
-4 hour vulnerability window for Raids, and the first phase of an Attack.
-Ability to open defense up to the public if there are not enough people on for a live battle. *
-Not have losing a Raid or Phase 1 of the attack be devastating. It should simply be a missed opportunity.
-Have a 24 hour lead time before Phase 2, so the defenders can setup an organized defence.
-Have the exact time of the Phase 2 and 3 battles be determined by the time the initial attack was launched, insuring that Attackers have some control over the time table.
-Have the ability to coordinate attacks, so that the defenders have to deal with more than one attack at the same time, necessitating the use of more than one PC team.
-Yet have 24 hour notice, so if the defenders donGÇÖt have enough people to run multiple defence teams, they can arrange for Ringers. (Not being able to field a full team and having to scramble for Ringers is one part of PC I do have experience with.)
-Organizing Ringers is difficult to maintain in the long term, so Corps that canGÇÖt field multiple PC teams at the same time would have difficulty holding large numbers of districts. So small elite Corps would not have a problem holding 1 district, but would have a lot of problems holding a large number of districts.
- Large Corps could use Zerg tactics by having their A, B, and C PC team attack the same Corp at the same time. The Defenders would likely successfully defend the District that they use their A team to defend, but might loose their other districts, as they will not know which district the Attackers will put their A team up against in the next phase. If there are 3 attacks on a Corp at the same time, and 1 District is successfully defended in Phase 2, that leaves 2 Districts to defend in Phase 3.
* I am thinking now of just have the queues for the Defence in live matches open to the public in the last 5 minutes of the Queue time (after 10 minutes for anyone on in Corp to queue up) and have a get what you kill Salvage system to encourage members of the Public to queue up for Defence in the public Queue. (I would rather face 8 Nyan San in a District Defence and get some Proto gear out of it than face them in a Pub Ambush.)
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5860
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 18:47:00 -
[357] - Quote
By the way, who is responsible for putting the latest episode up on http://biomassed.net/podcast?
Or did you guys just give up on recording this week when I did not respond to your invitation? 
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
5387
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:12:00 -
[358] - Quote
I actually did put it up, I just haven't updated the feed or iTunes because I went to sleep, and meant to do it this morning, and then didn't. If you look at the URLs for episodes on that page, Fox, and add one, you'll get the podcast for last weekend. :D
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Fox Gaden
Immortal Guides
Learning Alliance
5874
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 13:51:00 -
[359] - Quote
Started listening to this weeks Episode, so this will be my running cometary post as I work my way through it.
-Two introductions, two trolls, we are off to a good start. (I am a long time Cat Merc fan)
- DUST 514 is a Zombi! It died in the spring of 2014, but it refuses to stop moving. 
Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
|
Vell0cet
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
2755
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 07:39:00 -
[360] - Quote
I kept screaming "capacitors would fix that" at my screen to nearly the whole vehicle discussion. They would allow for more complexity to module management, but also allow for things to be run nearly constantly too, which would add interesting options to vehicle fittings (e.g. you could fit your vehicle to have a single repper going nonstop with no cooldowns, but you'll be vulnerable to bust damage as well as have little cap reserve to run an injector to GTFO, or fit your tank to have bursts of modules that will be very tough for short periods of time, etc.) It would solve the problem of tanks having to die quickly or slowly to 1 AV or 3. If one guy can cripple your tank, that means you can make them much tougher vs. AV, but will always be vulnerable to being tackled with webs and neuts. Plus it solves the problem of tanks being boring. Tons of fits, tons of different strategies. It would be a deep and interesting gameplay.
I wrote a pretty detailed discussion of some skill tree/UI ideas for Legion here. I think a lot of that would be applicable to DUST as well. Particularly relevant to the discussion was how I merged the weapons and turret trees into one tree, and divided it up more like EVE. This has several benefits, mainly that you become invested in a particular damage type, for both infantry and vehicles. It also makes damage types easier to grasp for new players because the weapons are organized appropriately.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |