|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Csikszent Mihalyi
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
268
   |
Posted - 2014.05.09 01:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Just food for thought, please excuse me if this has already been discussed a lot. I'm also not active in PC, so I might get some things wrong. My interest in this is only on an abstract, game design level.
Planetary Conquest never seemed very well thought out to me, because it's very one-dimensional: You are either strong enough to conquer districts, or you are not. There is no real sense of progression as far as I can tell. If you are a weak corp, there is little point in holding a district if any elite corp can then just choose you for easy pickings.
So it just got me thinking, what if PC would work essentially the same as it does in DUST, with the only difference that all PC management is relegated to EVE corporations?
This means it would be EVE corporations who own districts, reap the benefits, and plan attacks. The only extra step would be to organise a squad of mercs for the battle. This could either happen by contacting mercs directly or through a kind of public contract, where mercs can offer their services and the capsuleers get to pick the one they distrust the least. These contracts could involve a participation fee (paid out in case the battle happens) and a success bonus (paid out if the attack is a success, whether the battle happens or not).
The defending EVE corp then gets a chance to organise mercs for the defense, same deal.
Advantages of this approach would be:
* Capsuleers would be far more invested in what happens on the ground, and have more of a reason to battle for orbitals.
* Timezones would be handled more elegantly. E.g. if you attack a district by hiring australian mercs and set an australian timezone, the defense is also likely to hire australians for the defense.
* It would create more organic tiering, where top squads would fight for contracts which pay out the most, and capsuleers would pay out the most for districts which are the most valuable. You can't directly attack the weakest mercs because you never know who the defense will hire.
* It makes sense for Legion, because we are mercenaries, not conquerors. Scoring lucrative contracts seems to be more in character than organising total domination of the universe.
* It would create much more dynamic relationships between mercs and capsuleers, as capsuleers would want good relationships with elite mercs to secure their services, and mercs would want good relationships with capsuleers to secure lucrative contracts. Bribes and backstabbing and all those other goodies from the EVE universe would certainly make an appearance.
* All of these advantages would not require a massive redesign of the system, only moving some of the mechanics to the EVE client. This is not a pie-in-the-sky concept that is unlikely to work out in practice and it would retain the balanced competitive nature of PC with fixed number squads.
Potential disadvantages would be:
* It would of course require ISK flow between EVE and Legion which could be a challenge for the economy, but it's my understanding that this is what we want eventually anyway?
* Since you have to schedule time to contract a squad for both attack and defense, the turnaround times for attacks on districts could become significantly higher, but that seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
* In theory it could lead to the same situation where the most powerful EVE corp teams up with the most powerful mercs to lock down all of PC. But I do think that this would provide much more opportunity for enemies to organise themselves and provide a counter-weight, just like how it works out with nullsec sovereignty.
* It's not the anything-goes sandboxy attrition warfare where you can overwhelm the opponent with sheer numbers, which some people seem to ask for. Personally I have my doubts that this would ever lead to satisfying gameplay mechanics though. It's one thing to have large-scale battles which grind to a halt in an MMORPG which is essentially a spreadsheet, but if the same happens with a real-time first person shooter, you are not going to have a good time. If there's ever a completely open sandbox, I think this needs to be limited to the PVE side of the game, rather than the competitive side of the game. The fanfest presentation of Legion indicated to me that this is the plan.
* It would take away some mechanics from the Legion client. Again, I think that's a perfectly fair tradeoff for the benefits it would provide and it would also allow the Legion client to be more focused on it's strengths (the actual battles, and hopefully the PVE and player market aspects). |
Csikszent Mihalyi
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
270
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 08:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vin Vicious wrote:The problem is what if this idea is placed in the game and it turns out to be like bounty system in EVE
Not sure what you are alluding to (I haven't played much of EVE since the new bounty hunting system was introduced), but I'll make a guess and assume it's largely being ignored?
I think getting capsuleers to care about PC would "just" require balancing the rewards you stand to gain from owning districts, so EVE corps have a strong enough motivation to invest money into it. In the end corps would be running the numbers, like "if we put that much ISK into conquering and defending the district, it will pay off after that many weeks of holding it", etc.
It's pretty straight forward, so I don't see any major complications like the bounty system certainly has. |
Csikszent Mihalyi
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
272
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 13:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ahkhomi Cypher wrote:Am i the only person that has a problem with some eve guy telling me what to do in my game?
So because he has a spaceship in a different game he's gonna essentially be the leader of the corp.
Come on dude they already look down on us...
They are not the leader of the corp. Merc corps are still completely autonomous. Nobody can tell the mercs what to do, instead EVE corps have to offer lucrative contracts (or other incentives) to convince mercs to work for them. Mercs primary interest is not in capturing districts, but in securing lucrative contracts. Winning is only a means to an end to increase their reputation (and collect bonus payouts). It is entirely up to the mercs whether they decide to swear allegiance to an EVE corp or always sell their swords to the highest bidder.
The point is that EVE corps won't be able to ignore mercs any longer, since they would depend on us to capture (or defend) their districts.
Ultimately they pull the strings of the universe yes, but I don't have a problem with that. That's how I always pictured the EVE/DUST connection after all. EVE plans, Legion executes. One can't do without the other. |
Csikszent Mihalyi
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
274
|
Posted - 2014.05.09 16:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
R F Gyro wrote:
Have corps fight for control of planets, not individual districts, and control ownership of the planet means control of all (or most) of the districts. Some planets should have one or two districts, some should have lots. A small, highly skilled corp should be able to take and keep a planet with a single district, regardless of how many people are attacking them, because only 16 players can attack them at once. A large corp should be able to control a planet with 20 districts, regardless of the skill of the people attacking them, because they have the ability to field 320 players.
That's interesting, but ultimately it's still just as one-dimensional. Either you are the strongest corp in your "size group", or a stronger contender can just come and gobble you up at any time.
I guess it does give weaker mercs a chance to participate by filling up the numbers in a "win by numbers" corp, but it doesn't really allow new corps to gradually grow into it. And it won't scale forever, so eventually those large corps will be filled up as well and again limit the appeal of PC to a small percentage of the playerbase.
Also what's the fun in winning by numbers if that means you win because your opponent can't even field enough players to compete? To me that sounds more like the kind of numbers game that has a place in EVE. For Legion I expect meaningful battles where outcomes are decided on the battlefield, not in the spreadsheet. |
|
|
| |
|