Rattati, it just seems like the personally owned item and Corp owned barge should have different nomenclature. Also, while personal vessels and Corp-owned barges don't need a location in eve online for now I think a location conveyed on the dust star map and gameplay associated with that is needed to truly make these assets feel like home.

Right on the money, but EVE attacks are not on the table.

These Warbarges will not exist as a physical entity in 2015, they are as someone said, a metaphysical "home" and can not be attacked or destroyed except through new game modes that are not being discussed at the moment but A)"warbarge vs warbarge" is an idea, and B) "raid the warbarge" would mean a type of non-district PC where the attacker would fight in a "ship map" and steal resources (dust moon goo), but again not on the table for 2015.

What are the steps being taken to ensure that this doesn't just become another barrier for new players?

Also, what is the monetization strategy for these new features? I feel that while you guys have been doing great at providing early information on features for feedback, we've been left mostly in the dark when it comes to future monetization efforts. Strong boxes in particular could've had a really solid release if we had been given the numbers beforehand.

Please don't give their marketing team any ideas on ways to make this another "Freemium" thing.

This is very much aligned what we are thinking for the first iteration of warbarge modules.

I agree with the notion that Warbarge should not give any active (gunplay) bonuses.
For that we have the current SP, modules and dropsuites structure.
(One exception would be increased available bandwith, which could be introduced as a Warbarge module instead of a Dropsuite upgrade skill... Just a thought)

I think the Corp Warbarge (used for PC) should only provide tactical advantages on the battlefield. Corporations should also be able to increase the defence "rating" on any owned districts, using the same resources used for equipping the Warbarge. This would mean a corporation have to choose between beeing offencive or defensive, but they can't have both at the same time.

Sadly the current PC matches (standard Skirmish) etc does not give much room for this, which is why I think it's fundamental it changes as well. There have been many calls for Skirmish 1.0 (or similar), but perhaps we can work with what we got.

My take on a future PC battle would be 3 consecutive matches of 1: Ambush, 2: Domination and 3: Skirmish.

1: The first Ambush match is just to get a foothold on the district and reduce the enemy clones. Win or loose, the next game (Domination) will always occur, but some aspects can be changed depending on who won the last game.

2: The second game is a Domination with a twist. The District owner already have all installations, CRUs and of course the objective at the start of the game. The opposing team goal is to hack the objective (once) before their clones or command ship is destroyed. If they manage to take the objective, the game is over and the next (Skirmish) will start. If they don't, the attack failed and the last game will not start

3: Provided the attackers won the domination Match, the third and last game (Skirmish) commences. As with the Domination, the district owners have all objectives and installations etc at the start of the game. As with the Domination, the objective is to hack all objectives before clones run out of command ship is destroyed. It will be very hard (but not impossible) to counterhack any point if taken.

If the attackers win all matches the district is theirs, regardless how many clones the district owners have left, which will be lost / salvaged at the loss of the district.


Now, the tactical part comes in. With the above scenario if a corporation equip their Warbarge for offence, they might get access to closer (fixed) spawn points, or even the mythical "sky spawn" which was discussed for Legion.

For the defenders, if they don't spend some points in "defends" for the district, the districts will be "empty" of installations, Supply Depots etc. (turrets will have a much more tactical advantage if the defenders automatically own them at the start of the game).

... slightly off topic (warbarges that is), but I think much can be done to spice up PC with the game modes we have today, with slight alterations.

That's exacly the point, I, as a solo player, lack the feeling of ownership and progression

Very good points, I think we need to keep the LP weapons as a special category (That's where you go to get the specialist weapons as they are coming straight from the mass produced specialty rationed faction labs, and the overcharged "new" are coming from warbarge experimental labs. Officer remains salvage only.

I kind of hate the idea of personal warbarges. It's like every single real life mercenary having their own personal aircraft carrier, but even more ridiculous. Warbarges should be something that a corporation owns.

These "high level" PC ideas are pretty hard to care about, because the executions are always too intangible. I want tangibility. I want to be able to hangout in what me or my corp owns at any time I want; that means being able to walk on districts, and that means being able to walk in the warbarge that I or my corp owns whenever I want. Ownership should be more than text on a screen, it should be tangible.

EDIT: On the subject of warbarges, I would like to see an evolution of corporate conflict in which battles take place inside a warbarge for control of it. Would likely require a ton of new art assets for ship interiors, so likely won't happen.

I guess my question is then is it possible to give the flotilla a location for the purpose of limiting the range of clone packs launched from them or other planetary conquest game play mechanics?

I would say that the social in Dust is the strongest of any FPS on console already. I think it's important to drive players towards corporations, but we can't loose sight that those corporations need something for those players to DO as a corporation to actually keep people logging in for that social.

That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war.

THAT my friend, is a beautiful sight to behold.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE RATATTI(see, i even spelled it right) IMPLEMENT THIS NYAOOOW(activates Cat Merc signal)

I really don't see the barge granted in-match bonuses as being acceptable (more damage, more ammo, more health, etc.) for this exact reason. Also, a personally owned barge is a really dumb idea and everyone running around with a capital ship in their pocket seems just plain silly (a personal ship maybe).

A corp-owned asset that provides logistical bonuses in Planetary Conquest, LP bonuses in Faction Warfare, Salvage Bonuses in Pub matches, etc. I could see. Upgrading your merc quarters or your personal Merc vessel (not a personal capital ship, c'mon it's just silly) in this sort of End of Match vein I could see. In this vein I see Agent Jara actually as a good example of a personal upgrade and the direction the kinds of bonuses should take.

On the point of timers. Because we are in a lobby shooter you have to have some element of scheduling because having an empty fight when you are trying to get a fight really isn't that exciting or having all of your stuff taken while you are asleep isn't compelling gameplay.

Timer windows would make much more sense (2-4 hours) and be tied to district resource production. One of the reasons passive ISK generation was such a bad element of gameplay was because the output didn't scale with activity level. Districts need to produce something of value that is separate from clones and this needs to be actively extracted. While this extraction is occurring players with a Corp Warbarge in range (or maybe just anyone with a Corp Warbarge) can raid this extraction in order to steal the resources.

That is a good idea for making logistics work, clone packs should be good to get a foothold but not sustainable. Some form of distance formula penalty from warbarge using clonepacks would make sense. Then reinstill the movement penalties on land, and then the whole system starts working as intended, i.e. investments in infrastructure to overcome logistic penalties, just like war.

Having location matter will really be key to getting planetary conquest humming like a well oiled machine. It might be worthwhile to examine replacing messy clone loss mechanics with load clones from district to barge/flotilla (or have barge generate clones via the vat if you have no districts) then move barge/flotilla in range of targets. Instead of range (movement) costing clones potentially have it cost fuel. Trying to figure out how many clones were actually going to land for a fight back in the old days of planetary conquest was a pain and I'd hate to see that return.

I think the list of targets you mention could work well with this. Select the flotilla and get a list of targets in range according to filters the player sets.

ahh, beautiful and elegant. Basically a calculator of clone loss based on position of attack initiation and attacked district, could work from both flotilla and district, calculation based on Infrastructure and or Warbarge Modules (Long Range Assault Launchers or Improved MCCs).