|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4627
   |
Posted - 2014.10.07 00:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
I was thinking about this earlier, and had a couple ideas. They are mutually exclusive, and having absolutely zero PC experience may be completely ridiculous, so you let me know.
They are not completely fleshed out, so maybe they are just idea starters and could help someone with more experience spark a better one, or give them some additions and changes that make them more viable.
Scenario 1: Tiered districts. As it stands, it costs one price to attack any district, and you get one set of rewards. What if there were multiple tiers?
For example, you could have certain districts that would cost 5 mil to attack, others 10, 20, and 40. Each will have rewards that are proportional.
This would enable smaller corps to participate without onerous costs, and could provide enough benefits for them to move up in tiers.
Scenario 2: The costs of attacking a district were reduced the longer a corp held one (this also assumes passive isk). I see this as a way to prevent some of the blue donut that happened previously.
By enabling more corps, who may not be in an alliance, to attack long held districts, they would hypothetically have incentive to attack a corps districts, and perhaps put enough of a corps districts at risk that a corp with a lot of districts couldn't simply hold on to all of them for a long time. Also, this could incentivize a corp in an alliance to break that alliance with the cost/benefit analysis being sweetened over time. Perhaps there are mechanics I am not aware of that would negate this, but that was my thinking.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4629
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 01:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
hfderrtgvcd wrote:
They're good ideas but I don't think they would be possible because the cost of a clone is constant. If you implement your idea you would have to completely rework the way clones are bought and sold. Scenario 2 would also be far too easy to abuse.
Could you vary the tiers by number of clones needed to attack?
Would it even make a difference if they were able to implement a tiered system, or would it just end up changing things and getting the same, or a worse, outcome?
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4634
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 02:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
How does the passive ISK work? Would that be a constant as well, or could they vary that, like creating a significant drop off for any district that was held for a long period of time without having been defended?
This way if they wanted to make more isk, they would be inclined to attack and less inclined towards peace treaties.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
4662
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 19:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Soraya Xel wrote:I see ideas in here about tiering off districts. I think there's a lot of value in such a concept. But how do you make holding the smaller/less valuable districts unappealing to the blue donut?
My idea would be to have a greater number of smaller districts such that a large corp couldn't possibly hold and defend all of them. Owning too many would force them to thin out their power, and make them susceptible to attack.
The greater the number of districts that smaller corps can attack, the less able a large corp is of monopolizing them. With more incentives to hold higher tier districts with less thinning, they would in theory be encouraged to try and hold on to the fewer, more profitable tiers.
Whether the actual mechanics of this would work you could say better than I.
Or if there is a way to make additional changes to make this viable.
Soraya Xel wrote:Haerr wrote:Hold on maybe if there was a fee to field non corp members in defence of a raid? (So that it would only be profitable with a full corp team.) I think there's merit in the notion of just spawning assault raids from pirate factions on districts that would degrade clone counts and income. Within one's timer, it could be expected that they must either defend, or the district might just end up "unclaimed" if they don't.
I like this idea, but how would this work? Could they re tool the Special Contracts section, or would there be a change to Pub contracts? It seems at least one of them would require a client update.
You can always tell a Millford Minja
|
|
|
| |
|